Euthanasia

Talk about anything under the sun or stars - but keep it civil. This is where we really get to know each other. Everyone is welcome, and invited!

Euthanasia -- For or Against?

Against
4
40%
For
3
30%
Unsure
2
20%
Do Not Care
1
10%
 
Total votes: 10

User avatar
wigginboy
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:38 am
First Joined: 0- 2-2004
Location: Red Deer, Alberta, Canada

Euthanasia

Postby wigginboy » Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:32 pm

This is a very touchy issue, with some being staunchly against and some being very much for it. If an individual who has a terminal illness wishes to die, should they be allowed to sign over control of their life to a doctor or nurse who administers a lethal dosage to put them out of their pain? If someone is suffering and cannot make a conscious decision, should others be able to put them to 'sleep'? There are many possible permutations of the assisted suicide scenario. A few years ago, the caregivers of Terri Schiavo, a woman in a vegetative state fed by a feeding tube fought to have her euthanized.(http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/schiavo/)

As it is, there are only four jurisdictions in the world that allow euthanasia: Belgium, Netherlands, Oregon and Washington.(http://www.euthanasia.com/euthanasiamap.html) Interesting to note that the latter two are US states. The state laws do not override the federal laws so in the state itself it may be legal but it is still illegal at the federal level.

What it comes down to is this: is it really the right thing to do to assist in the death of a terminal individual? Is it proper to grant them their wishes of self destruction or should we be enticing them to let nature take its course? If you yourself were dying of a terminal illness, would you want your caregivers to make you die or let you die naturally? Should we be compassionate to the point of ending someone's life for them to end their pain? this is really a moral crossroads because there are so many arguments for and against that are likely to resonate equally within many minds. What are your takes? As I said, this is a very touchy issue that many feel strongly about. I hope some heated but clean debate that brings ideas and opinions out in the open can take place.

JeffersonSteelflex
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:43 am

Postby JeffersonSteelflex » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:06 am

I by no means am a religous man. I can count on one hand and remember in exact detail every time I've been inside a church in my 24yrs. That said, until we know how to create life, it's not right. I don't mean through intercourse, no. I mean that actual spark that divides the living from the dead. Until we know and are familiar with that one point and know exactly how it's done scientifically, we have no right messing with what does not belong to us. Your life does not belong to you, regardless of how important you are in the world. That spark is there soully because of God. It belongs to him. To do with it what you want is nothing short of stealing. (If your friend borrowed your car and left it in a ditch, or even lent it to one of their friends, isn't it still your property) If we knew how to create that spark, then yes we should be responsible for such life and death decisions. In the instance of cloning, yes we should have full say so because a clone is not born no matter how you look at it, it's engineered. Not a life, but a simulation.

User avatar
Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.
Contact:

Postby Eaquae Legit » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:29 am

There's a very important distinction that you have ignored, wigginboy. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are different beasts altogether, one being the involuntary killing of a person ostensibly for "mercy" reasons, and the other being voluntary and requested.

I am unequivocably opposed to the former, and find it disgusting and reprehensible and among the worst class of prejudice. The second is more morally ambiguous, though I am generally opposed to that too.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

User avatar
wigginboy
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:38 am
First Joined: 0- 2-2004
Location: Red Deer, Alberta, Canada

Postby wigginboy » Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:55 am

thank you for correcting this error. I was unaware there was a distinction.

Lusitania_Fleet
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:59 pm
Location: The End of the World, as you know it.

Postby Lusitania_Fleet » Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:35 pm

I think that when it gets down to it, euthanasia is the right thing to do. Illegal or not, there are still a few doctors whowill euthanize patients is subtle, 'accidental' ways.

I believe that once there is nothing left for you in this world, if you wish to die, then Doctors should be permitted to let you do it. Is it realyl better to just let, say, a terminal cancer patient lie on a bed gasping for air for the last three days of their life? I think that allowing someone release from that pain is a virtuous thing to do, and if you have the conscience to do it, it should be allowed. This isn't "i'm so upset" suicide, this is releasing people who are doomed anyway.
Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


Return to “Milagre Town Square”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 14 guests