mercy killing is illegal in all states except oregon. don't you think it should be legalized everywhere? i think it should because if people are gonna die, then they should have to suffer. say you had a disease where all your organs turned into mush and you puked them up until you died. i forgot what that was called, but it's a very slow death. would you want to suffer? or what if you just had a baby who had a very bad disease where it can't see, talk, move, or hear? would you want that baby to suffer? i sure wouldn't. so i think euthanasia should be legalized. what do you think?
Absolutely NOTTTT!!
I mean, how far would some people take it? Some people would stretch it to the breaking point, where if it's legalized, 40 years from now, a person could be euthanized if they're merely depressed, have pneumonia--maybe broken limbs or a person who's disfigured in a car accident or fire? When society opens the door where people are literally KILLED because they have sicknesses of some sort, then it could lead down a nightmarish path where people are "euthanized" for not being absolutely PERFECT. I would never, ever support "mercy killings". A person's time comes when it comes--naturally, not at the hands of another human being.
I mean, how far would some people take it? Some people would stretch it to the breaking point, where if it's legalized, 40 years from now, a person could be euthanized if they're merely depressed, have pneumonia--maybe broken limbs or a person who's disfigured in a car accident or fire? When society opens the door where people are literally KILLED because they have sicknesses of some sort, then it could lead down a nightmarish path where people are "euthanized" for not being absolutely PERFECT. I would never, ever support "mercy killings". A person's time comes when it comes--naturally, not at the hands of another human being.
I would hardly call breating through a respirator and being fed through a tube "natural". They would be dead without our artificial help anyways. Life and death is very much in our control, we've already crossed that line long ago. When a little common sense, not overly zealous, emotional non-logic is used, those who we ought to let die will go peacefully, so we can put our resources towards those that can go on to live happy, productive lives.
Only if it's not assisted by a doctor or any medical professional. I don't believe in Doctor Assisted Suicide. :( In fact if a Doctor was set on fire because he/she performed assisted suicide I wouldn't piss on them.
Ilikethepixies
I would hardly call breating through a respirator and being fed through a tube "natural". They would be dead without our artificial help anyways. Life and death is very much in our control, we've already crossed that line long ago. When a little common sense, not overly zealous, emotional non-logic is used, those who we ought to let die will go peacefully, so we can put our resources towards those that can go on to live happy, productive lives.
Okay, you keep believing in that. But I believe that human life should be respected no matter what form it takes, YES, even it is aided by a respirator. My grandfather had emphysema for years and he needed help from a respirator, and I CHERISHED those years I had with him and if anyone had suggested to him or his family that he be "helped" to die, that little bit of so-called "common sense" you so delicately put euthanasia as, he would have used that breath in his lungs to CURSE THEM OUT!
My father had cancer and at times, needed that precious oxygen from a respirator to help him survive. He WANTED to live, FOUGHT to live, and neither one of us would have thrown away our precious time together for anything in this world, simply because he was sick and needed some help from a respirator at times. And guess what? If anyone had suggested to him or his family that he be "helped" to die, he would have CURSED THEM OUT and by the time he had finished screaming, they would have never forgotten it.
Those are the kind of people "who we ought to let die will go peacefully" "so we can put our resources towards those that can go on to live happy, productive lives". Have you even known a single person that was sick? They are human beings with families who love them, and many of these folks who do have to be hooked up to respirators ( a medical invention that was invented to prolong life, in the first place, I might remind you) STILL have the struggle for life in their hearts and would not approve or want to be "euthanized".
Pudgietheparrot
Okay, you keep believing in that. But I believe that human life should be respected no matter what form it takes, YES, even it is aided by a respirator. My grandfather had emphysema for years and he needed help from a respirator, and I CHERISHED those years I had with him and if anyone had suggested to him or his family that he be "helped" to die, that little bit of so-called "emotional non-logic" you so delicately put euthanasia as, he would have used that breath in his lungs to CURSE THEM OUT!
Well, that would mean he didn't want to die, so euthanasia would be pointless in his case. However, it would be foolish to apply your uncle's situation to every individual with a horrific, painful terminal illness. You quite simply don't know what other people may be going through, and sometimes, the pain really is too great for them to bear.
As for me, while ultimately I believe that life and death decisions of this nature should ultimately be left between a patient and his/her doctor only, I have heard the argument that part of the problem is ineffective pallative care. Usually one of the biggest reasons why terminally ill patients consider euthanasia an option is because they can't bear the pain anymore. Maybe we need to reconsider the ways in which we use drugs like morphine before we consider legalizing euthanasia.
Video_Jukebox
Well, that would mean he didn't want to die, so euthanasia would be pointless in his case. However, it would be foolish to apply your uncle's situation to every individual with a horrific, painful terminal illness. You quite simply don't know what other people may be going through, and sometimes, the pain really is too great for them to bear.
As for me, while ultimately I believe that life and death decisions of this nature should ultimately be left between a patient and his/her doctor only, I have heard the argument that part of the problem is ineffective pallative care. Usually one of the biggest reasons why terminally ill patients consider euthanasia an option is because they can't bear the pain anymore. Maybe we need to reconsider the ways in which we use drugs like morphine before we consider legalizing euthanasia.
It was my grandfather, not my uncle.
I think you're confused here, Pudgie. I was breaking apart your argument. You argue that:
A- Let people live and die naturally, and
B- Let humans use their technology to keep people alive (which is unnatural)
The great part about it, is that even though you think human life is a special, shiny, little gift from above, to people who have become factories of pain, piss and shit... who are neatly filed away in some sterile hospital... human life is actually not so special. I know that's hard to believe. We who are not vegitables enjoy life, so its kind of hard to understand what it might be like to desperately want to die.
I'm glad that your family members were helped out by modern technology. That's something that it is useful for, as I said in my first post. You're just confusing the two: euthanasia and medical treatment. Try not to let your emotions get your argument twisted up, it makes you sound silly.
A- Let people live and die naturally, and
B- Let humans use their technology to keep people alive (which is unnatural)
The great part about it, is that even though you think human life is a special, shiny, little gift from above, to people who have become factories of pain, piss and shit... who are neatly filed away in some sterile hospital... human life is actually not so special. I know that's hard to believe. We who are not vegitables enjoy life, so its kind of hard to understand what it might be like to desperately want to die.
I'm glad that your family members were helped out by modern technology. That's something that it is useful for, as I said in my first post. You're just confusing the two: euthanasia and medical treatment. Try not to let your emotions get your argument twisted up, it makes you sound silly.
Pudgietheparrot
It was my grandfather, not my uncle.
My mistake, but my argument still stands.
Ilikethepixies
I think you're confused here, Pudgie. I was breaking apart your argument. You argue that:
A- Let people live and die naturally, and
B- Let humans use their technology to keep people alive (which is unnatural)
The great part about it, is that even though you think human life is a special, shiny, little gift from above, to people who have become factories of pain, piss and shit... who are neatly filed away in some sterile hospital... human life is actually not so special. I know that's hard to believe. We who are not vegitables enjoy life, so its kind of hard to understand what it might be like to desperately want to die.
I'm glad that your family members were helped out by modern technology. That's something that it is useful for, as I said in my first post. You're just confusing the two: euthanasia and medical treatment. Try not to let your emotions get your argument twisted up, it makes you sound silly.
You are entitled to believe in whatever you please. But in my opinion, it doesn't make your opinions right. If human life was "actually not so special" "to people who have become factories of pain, piss and shit" why did Holocaust survivors struggle and strive to keep their life during the worst years of Nazi oppression and disease? I have studied the Holocaust for many years, and there was an enormous amount of people who became severely ill due to starvation and disease and were placed in concentration camp hospitals with filthy lice-infected cots that make your sterile U.S. hospital look like a paradise, but there were always plenty of them who struggled to stay alive and tell their story. Holocaust survivors literally lived this part of their lives covered in "pain, piss, and shit" yet many of these courageous people survived and lived to tell their accounts. Apparently their life was pretty darn special to them or else they would have agreed to give up on their lives and die. Why would people who have been afflicted with horrible diseases such as cancer, AIDS, muscular distrophy, etc be desperate for a cure so they can live their life for a long time to come? Many sick people, even through great suffering, think that human life is something pretty darn special, or else many wouldn't fight to preserve it in times of peril and disease. If experiencing immense pain in life is the excuse for what you advocate for, then 100% of Holocaust survivors would have died in those camps and there wouldn't be anyone around to tell the story. You call ME the silly one? Well, as I said, you just keep believing in that if it makes you feel better. :)
There's one major difference in people that should be euthanized and people in a concentration camp:
They won't get better.
I'm surprised you didn't see that one coming. But then again, you still have this confusion between differentiating between a person that is terminally ill and one that isn't.
As for people with AIDS, cancer, and the like... no one has ever talked about putting them down. I'm all for researching the hell out of that stuff. That's another area you fail to consider: There is a difference in the quality of life between a vegitable and someone in their situation. Magic Johnson is on TNT covering basketball games. A person who is a vegitable waits quietly to die. A logical argument might make you sound a little smarter than a sarcastic smiley face at the end of your post. You should look into it.
They won't get better.
I'm surprised you didn't see that one coming. But then again, you still have this confusion between differentiating between a person that is terminally ill and one that isn't.
As for people with AIDS, cancer, and the like... no one has ever talked about putting them down. I'm all for researching the hell out of that stuff. That's another area you fail to consider: There is a difference in the quality of life between a vegitable and someone in their situation. Magic Johnson is on TNT covering basketball games. A person who is a vegitable waits quietly to die. A logical argument might make you sound a little smarter than a sarcastic smiley face at the end of your post. You should look into it.
Ilikethepixies
There's one major difference in people that should be euthanized and people in a concentration camp:
They won't get better.
I'm surprised you didn't see that one coming. But then again, you still have this confusion between differentiating between a person that is terminally ill and one that isn't.
As for people with AIDS, cancer, and the like... no one has ever talked about putting them down. I'm all for researching the hell out of that stuff. That's another area you fail to consider: There is a difference in the quality of life between a vegitable and someone in their situation. Magic Johnson is on TNT covering basketball games. A person who is a vegitable waits quietly to die. A logical argument might make you sound a little smarter than a sarcastic smiley face at the end of your post. You should look into it.
A so-called 'vegetable' to you is a beloved wife, husband, grandmother, grandfather to another. It shouldn't be up to any man to decide who will be "happy" or "more productive" than another. That's not very good territory to wade into, in my opinion. Who the heck are you to label certain human beings "vegetables" because some will not survive their illness? How about the love, devotion, and care many have in the mean time from their families and friends? There are many families like mine who have had terminally ill relatives who have not survived, but who have have been given comfort in the mean time and cherished memories for their family members for years to come. Am I to understand that people like this should have been left to die? There are many individuals who have been pronounced 'vegetables', 'beyond hope for recovery' by their doctors yet who have spent many more loving years with their families and no one would have thrown those years away for anything. These "vegetables" as you so bluntly put them, are still human beings and their life is still precious, and in many cases valued by their families. Many if not most of these so-called "vegetables" are not all desperately suicidal either; a great deal of these people want to preserve the life they have left, even if it's only a few months, and spend it with their loved ones. Have you ever considered that you are possibly speaking out of ignorance? Have you ever spent any time with, or met any individual who is terminally ill? Really spoken to one, gotten to know one? If not, then I can't be expected to take your opinions very seriously. I've had personal experience with terminally ill people: my father and grandfather. Both passed away from diseases, both did not recover, and both needed to be helped to survive with modern technology. And yet, the time and memories I had with them were special and would not have been discarded for anything, and they wouldn't have thrown them away either! You will find the same sentiment with the vast majority of cases like this concerning terminally ill people not surviving. It's not always about the cold so-called 'common sense', but family ties and the sanctity of human life. I would rather have this type of "emotion" than have your kind of "common sense" any day of the week.
Oy, vey. Let's see if I can get this done before I have to run.
Fixed. For one thing, you're confusing people like the late Terri Schiavo with sentient yet terminally ill people like your grandfather. For another, people who are "vegetables" (in a permanent vegetative state of some sort-- note well the word "permanent") are unlikely to recover. The only time hospital ethics committees ever consider ending someone's life by turning off a machine is in conditions where the person pretty much isn't there anymore. Legalized uthanasia would merely extend that to terminally ill patients who just don't want to go on anymore.
It's usually not one person. That's why hospitals have ethics committees.
It's not me, dear. Usually, it takes several doctors to make that sort of diagnosis-- several well-educated doctors who have the knowledge and training to make that kind of judgment call.
It would be very selfish of anyone to keep someone alive and in pain well past their time simply because they want "memories". Sometimes, the best thing really is to let go. Obviously, it wasn't so in the case of your family members, but in some cases, yes.
Again, you're confusing clinically brain dead people with people like your grandfather, who was sentient, alert, and didn't want to die. To the best of my knowledge, no one called your grandfather a vegetable.
If we're strictly speaking "terminally ill" and not in a permanent vegetative state, I would say yes. My grandmother passed away about six years ago from an unholy combination of cancer, pneumonia, and simple old age. She was a holy terror to the people at the nursing home, complaining left, right, and center about everything, screaming at everyone. Some of the orderlies would literally shake as they approached her room. Whenever we showed up, she spent the better part of the time we were there saying how much she "wish the Lord would take me" and how miserable she was. This was NOT the same kindly woman who would serve me rice pudding and talk to me about my day after school. Those are bad memories that I really don't cherish.
As for people who are reduced to Terry Schiavo-status, I can't say I've met any of them. Even if I were in the room with one, I still couldn't say I've met them, because the real them died when they went into the state.
Take that as you will. I'm done here.
Pudgietheparrot
A so-called 'vegetable' to you WAS a beloved wife, husband, grandmother, grandfather to another.
Fixed. For one thing, you're confusing people like the late Terri Schiavo with sentient yet terminally ill people like your grandfather. For another, people who are "vegetables" (in a permanent vegetative state of some sort-- note well the word "permanent") are unlikely to recover. The only time hospital ethics committees ever consider ending someone's life by turning off a machine is in conditions where the person pretty much isn't there anymore. Legalized uthanasia would merely extend that to terminally ill patients who just don't want to go on anymore.
It shouldn't be up to any man to decide who will be "happy" or "more productive" than another. That's not very good territory to wade into, in my opinion.
It's usually not one person. That's why hospitals have ethics committees.
Who the heck are you to label certain human beings "vegetables" because some will not survive their illness?
It's not me, dear. Usually, it takes several doctors to make that sort of diagnosis-- several well-educated doctors who have the knowledge and training to make that kind of judgment call.
How about the love, devotion, and care many have in the mean time from their families and friends? There are many families like mine who have had terminally ill relatives who have not survived, but who have have been given comfort in the mean time and cherished memories for their family members for years to come. Am I to understand that people like this should have been left to die? There are many individuals who have been pronounced 'vegetables', 'beyond hope for recovery' by their doctors yet who have spent many more loving years with their families and no one would have thrown those years away for anything. These "vegetables" as you so bluntly put them, are still human beings and their life is still precious, and in many cases valued by their families.
It would be very selfish of anyone to keep someone alive and in pain well past their time simply because they want "memories". Sometimes, the best thing really is to let go. Obviously, it wasn't so in the case of your family members, but in some cases, yes.
Many if not most of these so-called "vegetables" are not all desperately suicidal either; a great deal of these people want to preserve the life they have left, even if it's only a few months, and spend it with their loved ones.
Again, you're confusing clinically brain dead people with people like your grandfather, who was sentient, alert, and didn't want to die. To the best of my knowledge, no one called your grandfather a vegetable.
Have you ever considered that you are possibly speaking out of ignorance? Have you ever spent any time with, or met any individual who is terminally ill? Really spoken to one, gotten to know one? If not, then I can't be expected to take your opinions very seriously. I've had personal experience with terminally ill people: my father and grandfather. Both passed away from diseases, both did not recover, and both needed to be helped to survive with modern technology. And yet, the time and memories I had with them were special and would not have been discarded for anything, and they wouldn't have thrown them away either! You will find the same sentiment with the vast majority of cases like this concerning terminally ill people not surviving. It's not always about the cold so-called 'common sense', but family ties and the sanctity of human life. I would rather have this type of "emotion" than have your kind of "common sense" any day of the week.
If we're strictly speaking "terminally ill" and not in a permanent vegetative state, I would say yes. My grandmother passed away about six years ago from an unholy combination of cancer, pneumonia, and simple old age. She was a holy terror to the people at the nursing home, complaining left, right, and center about everything, screaming at everyone. Some of the orderlies would literally shake as they approached her room. Whenever we showed up, she spent the better part of the time we were there saying how much she "wish the Lord would take me" and how miserable she was. This was NOT the same kindly woman who would serve me rice pudding and talk to me about my day after school. Those are bad memories that I really don't cherish.
As for people who are reduced to Terry Schiavo-status, I can't say I've met any of them. Even if I were in the room with one, I still couldn't say I've met them, because the real them died when they went into the state.
Take that as you will. I'm done here.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, of course. I might have simply misunderstood several points, regarding clinically brain dead individuals and terminally ill people who are not, and yes I know that the situation with my family doesn't apply to all people. I would not think they would, of course. However, I wasn't just talking about my family. I have heard personal stories of families with relatives who are in a vegetative state like Terri Schiavo, and some of these families still strongly object to the thought of euthanasia and gathering from years spent with their relatives prior to their illness, feel that their relatives themselves would want to stay alive. Some of the people who are vegetative, might very well NOT want what happened to Schiavo if they could make their feelings known. None of us know what Terri Schiavo really would have wanted and said publicly about her situation if she had the capacity to express her feelings. And please remember, there were a great deal of people who felt that what happened to her was completely wrong and medically unecessary. I simply don't agree with euthanasia in really, any situation. But everyone is entitled to believe in what they choose and even though I don't agree with some opinions, I respect each other's right to their own thoughts on the matter. I can agree to disagree with other people on this matter. But I still strongly disagree with this "euthanasia". I'll never be on board with something like that.
I think it should be legal everywhere. I thought so for years.
I mean, if an animal is suffering people don't think twice about putting it down, but if a human is suffering they let them live until they die, no matter how far gone they are. I think that's less ethical than just "putting them down" so to say.
I mean, if an animal is suffering people don't think twice about putting it down, but if a human is suffering they let them live until they die, no matter how far gone they are. I think that's less ethical than just "putting them down" so to say.
"Did I ever tell you how much I like ants huh? Especially fried in a subtle blend of mech fluid and grated gears?"
-Rampage, Beast Wars
-Rampage, Beast Wars
If killing people is illegal, what makes this any different?
also, since the thread IS getting outta hand here...
also, since the thread IS getting outta hand here...