Euthanasia! Should it be legal in this country?
828723
I believe it should be legal, I have taken care of alot of suffering people and have seen what death from cancer, ALS (Lou Gehrigs disease), Multiple Sclerosis, and many other things is like. Imagine being robbed of every possible function, not including being able to speak or even be able to lift your arm, but still having your mental capacity intact....Alzheimers is another big one, watching a spouse grieve so much because their husband/wife cannot remember 50 years of marriage or even their own children...sometimes people who are actively dying hang on for up to 2 weeks. If someone is in their right mind when diagnosed with something like that, they should be able to make the decision to terminate their lives at a specific point in the disease progression, as long as the situation matches their specified criteria...I used to say no way I would never do that or think that was ok but then I began working in the health profession, and I am not so naieve anymore, there is pure suffering happening every second of every day. We dont like to see our pets suffer so we put them down when it is their time, but we humans must suffer for many years sometimes before we are withered away to nothing and basically have nothing else the disease can take but your life. It should be legal!! Right to live means right to live with a good quality of life, but when the naysayers are laying on their deathbeds and having their BM cleaned up by total strangers stricken with some terrible affliction and no pain medication in the world will take it away, they might change their minds. Euthanasia, along with guidelines should be legal
1129519
I completely agree with you, all the way!\n\nIt is the right of anyone living in this country to do whetever ho so chooses, as long as it doesn't harm anyone!\n\nExcellent question... Valid point!
881384
For people - I would support it if it were the wishes of the person who was being assisted in death. I cannot imagine living with a jhorrible termianl illness and in massive amounts of pain.
80282
Nope!!!! Nobody has a right to take a life...\nThat includes the person himself.
889616
That's a lot of questions. Let's see...\n1) I will not donate my organs. There's no point. For medical reasons, they would be unusable except for training purposes, and I feel that is undignified.\n\n2) Ordinary means of resusitation can include paddles. But machines that breathe for you or take over organ function for more than a few minutes would be extraordinary.\n\n3) Euthanasia should be illegal because it's too easy to shift the decision from the person to the doctor, or worse, the inheritor. This has already happened in Holland.\n\n4) I could only offer encouragement, and see to it that appropriate pain relievers are made available.\n\n5) Passive is the only way. However, witholding of feeding is NOT acceptable.\n\n6) No. That is not a decision that can be morally made by any man.\n\n7) Life ends when brain function stops. At that point, the soul is no longer present, and there is no point in keeping the rest of the  body functioning.\n\nOh, I'm 52, and have a personal relationship with my Creator.
307335
Honestly, they say it's illegal but (United States) I havent actually seen anyone charged with anything if they attempted it and ended up not dying. \n It's probably said to be illegal because when you become that extremely depressed where ending your life seems the only option- you're probably not thinking as clearly as say, on an average day minus that depression.\n Also, you cant murder people- so it makes sense you cant murder yourself without doing something illegal...\n I do think some circumstances they should allow it for say, cancer patients who are close to death etc...but for others, well- like I said, I havent even heard of them actually charging them with anything.\n They just ask you questions and if you'd like to be committed to a mental care facility till you're less at-risk if you're already an adult. Probably because if they were to charge you with something- you'd be even more suicidal, haha.\n What I'm perplexed about is that there's people who are amazed that (at least in the US) they arent living as "free" here as they thought I suppose. Is it truly surprising it'd be illegal to run your own life and it's span?
132511
I don't think it is right the ends someone's life before it's thier time. Life should be respected at all levels. Everyone should respect life from the unborn to natural death. Abortion is wrong and so it the Death Penality.
761572
it makes little sense.  the cost for "euthanasia" is minimal so there is no government support for this.  the question is broader and then it is merely ethical. If a doctor is pro-euthanasia it should be of no consequence for the government either way.
380408
Of course your question might be phrased a little off, because the death penalty IS legal in some states.\n\nMy personal opinion is it should be legal in all states.  I kind of differ that I do not belief it should be shown or made a big deal out of, glorifying it in the news, etc, though that is normal human nature I guess.\n\nThe reason I believe in the death penalty is there are some people that are so dangerous they will continue to do what they do whether they are in prison or not.  And those that have prison terms have been dealt the fairest justice exacted upon them, and the risk of dying at the hands of another would be reduced by the death penalty I believe.  I also believe the families deserve closure.
237815
This is an article [as requested by you], written by an unknown author, and posted on www.studyworld.com.  The author's views are his/her own, and do not in any way reflect Kittykid's views on this topic : \n                  Euthenasia\nSue Rodriguez, who openly advocated Euthanasia, has reminded us all of our own mortality and our need to think carefully about the kind of society we want to live and to die in. \nSue Rodriguez was known through the media, and her well spoken and eloquent speeches. People painfully in support of what she believed in, watched as her strength was sapped by the devastating disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), and we were moved by her clear thought and her bravery as a person facing death. \nHere was a woman who acted on her beliefs with\ncourage and tenacity and whose grace has enriched us all.\nIt is no defense to point to the fact that a person has\nrequested to be killed: "No person is entitled to consent\nto have death inflicted upon him, and such consent does not\naffect the criminal responsibilities of any person by whom\ndeath may be inflicted upon the person by whom consent is\ngiven," which seems to mean that no one has a right to\nconsent to have death inflicted on him or her. \nIn addition, if a person causes the death of another, the consent of the deceased does not provide the person who caused the death a defense to criminal responsibility. Is there a difference, do you think, between a person who, at a dying person's request, prepares a poison and leaves it on the bedside for that person to take, and a person who helps the patient to drink it or who administers it directly at the request of a dying person who is unable to take it personally? Is there, in short, a real distinction between killing and letting die? \nWell, this is the difference between passive and\nactive euthanasia, and if you believe in euthanasia, you\nmust decide which one is correct or even accept both to be\ncorrect depending upon the situation. We must carefully\nthink through a number of conceptual issues. What is a\nperson? What is death? How does the difference between\nactive and passive function in arguments for and against\neuthanasia? Is there any difference between killing and\nletting die? Suppose the doctor agrees to withhold\ntreatment... \nThe justification for his doing so is that the\npatient is in terrible agony, and since he is going to die\nanyway, it would be wrong to prolong his suffering\nneedlessly. But now notice this. If one simply withholds\ntreatment, it may take the patient longer to die, and so he\nmay suffer more than he would if more direct action were\ntaken and a lethal injection given. \nThis fact provides strong reason for thinking that, once the initial decision not to prolong his agony has been made, active euthanasia is actually preferable to passive euthanasia, rather than the reverse. \nIndividuals have the right to decide about\ntheir own lives and deaths. Denying terminally ill patients\nthe right to die with dignity is unfair and cruel. The\ngolden rule requires that we allow active euthanasia for\nterminally ill patients who request it in certain\nsituations. \nPeople have the right to die with dignity and\nlucidity. Gayle Stelter (Vancouver Sun) writes, "For almost\nseven years I have been living with cancer, mostly joyously\nand gratefully, but gradually seeing the disease\nencroaching relentlessly on my once healthy body.\nThroughout these years, I have thought long and hard about\ndeath and I've discovered that it's not the prospect of\ndeath itself that is so frightening, but the process of\ndying. So to give myself courage, I have held an option in\nreserve.\nWhen I can see no quality ahead, when I am capable\nof bidding my loved ones a coherent farewell, when I am\nstill in control of my resources, I will enlist someone's\nhelp to speed me on my journey. \n... For those of us who may choose to leave while there is still
515851
I don't know if it should be considered a "right". I think each case should be determined on its own merit. Some say they are against, some say they are for it. Who is right? If a person is terminally ill, in incredible pain, why shouldn't they be able to make a decision to have a doctor assisted suicide? They are many who agree that the death penalty is moral, so why shouldn't the right to die be considered to be moral. Some places consider execution and abortion to be legal, each in each instance the taking of a life. Yet they have a problem with assisted suicide.
1041173
Yes. It's not life - it is an unnatural halfway point. \n\nLet people die with their dignity.
583185
That it is wrong.\nHistory has already shown us what happens when this is allowed--suddenly it not just the terminally ill but every "Undesirable" human that someone playing "God" determines should die. (See Nazi's)\n\nThat brings me to the real point--only God decides when one dies.\n\nExample: would you want someone to decide that your baby who may have been born with a birth defect should be killed instead of doctors trying to save it?\n\nThat is just one of the many dilemas which we as a society would face if the practice of Euthanasia was ever embraced.
191649
This country is legislating morality.  Prostitution goes against the religious values of our Christian majority.  I believe the government feels it must protect us from our selves Plus the government does not make any money from it.  Where are the lobbyist for prostitution\nEX\nIts ok that cigarette smoking kills our people and is a major drain on this countries health care system because it does not go against the religious morals.  Plus the goverment is making money from this industry.\n\nIf prostitution was legal it could be regulated. It would be safer for all invloved.  It could be taxed and income could be received.   Areas could be set up to police it and make it unobtainable to our youth.
20127
authanasia is legalized in \nAustralia \nBelgium \nThe Netherlands \nOregon (United States)\n\nHowever, there are two types of euthanasia - active and passive. 1. Active Euthanasia: a positive action is taken to bring about someone’s death e.g. the administering of a deadly injection or the assisting in preparations for a suicide\n2. Passive Euthanasia involves a refusal to intervene to change the course of events, where the result is the death of the person.\n\nAll of these countries support Assisted Euthanasia -\na second party (usually a physician) participates in bringing about the patient’s death, but is not the sole cause of the death. \n\nNetherland for example allows permits physician assisted dying when each of the following conditions is fulfilled:\nthe patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement \nthe patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (The request can not be granded when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs) \nthe patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options \nthere must be consultation with at least one other independent docter who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above \nthe death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be present. \nthe patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)\n\nthese laws are different in each of these countries.
991865
What sad answers.  Do you realize how unfeeling and cold your answers are.  How can you pass a law and make it OK for some doctor to puncture a hole in your babies head, suck its brains out and kill him or her and then pull the dead child out and tell me that is acceptable.  You are the same people that want to put someone in jail for being inhumane to animals.  Now I think they are both wrong but I do think the first is a sin.  That same child once it is born alive if you smothered it because you did not want it you would go to jail.  Now tell me what is the difference.  Either way it is a living human being.  A child in the womb cannot live if the mother does not take care of herself and eat properly in other wards you have to take care of it, a baby has to be taking care of by the mother or someone who cares.  They are both still life, why should it be legal to throw an unborn child away.  The funny thing is there was a man here in NC that took an animal,cut the unborn pups out and killed them the out cry was loud.  But those same people who were appalled at this would not blink when the same thing is done to a human being.  \nPlease people wake up, you should not have the RIGHT to kill a child any child.  If you do not want children use a condon, the pill, abstanance & if you get pregnant take care of that child and when it is born give it up for adoption, they at least deserve that.
453873
That right has always been forfeited, when have we ever legally had the choice to die? Our pets do, but we do not. Its just the law. It doesnt stop anyone from doing it though, so what does it really matter. Love Heidi