Question about euthanasia?
971434
No, God has put animals under the dominion of man. However it talks about dealing with them kindly. That would include if we killed them for food, for example, to do it in a humane way, and not to promote their suffering. (I know I'm gonna hear from vegetarians on that one, but I stand by it.)
856837
Too many people believe it's a sin and you'll go to hell for suicide.  Others believe than you should have the right to terminate your own life with dignity when it becomes unbearable.  And then there is the issue of those who are too ill to speak for themselves and have not left an advance directive (or living will).  So... oppression because of religion, again!
844681
Yes.\n\nYou wouldn't let a dog go through what some terminally ill people have to suffer.\n\nI've seen a member of my BF's family dying of lung cancer recently.  They had enough money for her to have the best care possible and she was still begging to be "let go" as she was in so much pain and her life had become a burden.\n\nImagine how much worse it is for those who can't afford to have the best private care? \n\nLike I said, I wouldn't see my dog go through it, let alone a loved one. if they wanted to go then I would want the law to respect their decision (which can only be made by the terminally ill person).  Otherwise I'd fight them every bloody step of the way!\n\n"David" \n\n - sorry darling but you'd better look up what Euthanasia is.  \n\nEuthanasia is assisted suicide which means the terminally ill person has REQUESTED it and wants help to do it painlessly and with dignity.   Of course its "with the person's permission".  It would be murder otherwise!  Doh!
614210
Technically,  euthanasia is not legal in this country, but physician assisted suicide is legal in Oregon
512606
Okay, I'm tempted to offer to put you out of your misery.\n\nThis is a big topic and you have to find a meaningful focus. Do you want to talk about the ethical debate? Do you want to discuss the legal issues? \n\nHere's one idea, since it's civics: Look at the one country where euthanasia is legal, Holland, and talk about whether the law there would be a good or bad model for the United States to follow. Is the enactment of such a law desirable? Would it be workable in the climate of the US given the polarization over the abortion issue? Is this something that could be enacted nationally or only statewide, as the mercy-killing law in Oregon. \n\nI've cited a few websites below that could be useful starting points, but you problem need to delve into hard-copy stuff, journals and books.\n\nHope this idea is helpful. Better get going.
144796
its practiced on people of all ages, the prerequisite is terminal illness,vegetative states,massive pain.....\nnot age, you dont euthanize for age...
289512
I work in a nursing home, and needless to say when our patients die no heroic measures are taken, their quality of life is zero and reviving them would be prolonging their agony. One man died in the early hours of the morning, the nurse on duty couldn't feel a pulse or hear him breathing when she listened with a stethoscope. \nThe Dr. came out to certify him a couple of hours later, by this time the man looked waxy and blue, and was very obviously dead, but the Dr. could hear a faint heartbeat, although the man was definitely not breathing.\nHe still certified him though, and before he left he said to the nurse if he comes back to life please call me! We were all seriously freaked, but by the time the undertakers arrived the man hadn't made any miraculous recovery, and was still dead.     Or was he?         Absolute true story!
771496
I believe we should be able to die with dignity. While there are obvious needs for safeguards and protocols to protect the innocent from predators, if someone is terminally ill and no longer considers their quality of life to be sufficient to continue, then they should be allowed to request medications to end their life.\n\nI have watched relatives die of cancer; no-one deserves to be forced to go through that process unwillingly. Those that want to should get all the support they need; those that choose to die early should be given the means to do so.
624789
Euthanasia should be legalized but very carefully. Sometimes it is better to die than live with a painful, vegetative disease. However the laws will have to be clear, there are many who might use it for unscrupulous reasons
30879
Wow, I posed that very question in relation to physician-assisted suicide on a paper I wrote a few weeks ago...\n\nit doesn't make any sense to me. i mean, physician -assisted suicide is when the patient is terminally ill with no chance of recovery, only has a few months or even weeks to live, is suffering intolerable pain, and really just wants to put an end to their own suffering... yet this is illegal in most of the world, and all of the US states except for Oregon(and Bush is trying to get it taken away from there too...) I don't understand why this is illegal, yet a women is allowed to kill her unborn child who has a full life ahead of them.  It seems that abortion is more "wrong" than suicide, because it's dealing with someone else's life, and with abortion you have other options like adoption. regardless of whether abortion is right or wrong, it seems more wrong than physician-assisted suicide(PAS), so why is PAS illegal and abortion legal? it makes no sense at all.  i can understand regular suicide, because the person could just be temporarily depressed and end up having a fine life later on, or be thankful that their suicide was prevented... however, there really is no legal deterant for people committing suicide since if they succeed, they won't have to worry about any legal ramifications anyway. even with drugs, i think people who use drugs are just stupid and if they are stupid enough to use drugs then we really don't need their genes in the gene pool anyway... it's their choice, and i agree that there shouldnt be a law against it, under our democracy, people should be able to make that decision for themselves.
963657
Many people are in favor of the death penalty for certain criminals who are deemed worthless to society. How is euthanizing severely disabled babies different than killing a criminal? Both are making value judgements about a life.\n\nI am a liberal, and I am conflicted about such questions. Why pay to keep someone alive if they will never contribute to society? And, why keep a severely disabled child alive that will be a drain on society? But, life is precious; how can we as humans effectively decide that a life is worthless when we cannot know the ultimate outcome?
868068
i had been into that issue too, im on affirmative side. yes to euthanasia. my ground presents a lot of aspects, morality, socially, politically, by religion, specially psychological issues..etc, all social and prvate issues. it isnt a hindrance when the person commting or indulging it ask for a mercy killing. bt due to constitutional rights, a life to preserve and a right to live. doctors wont give it for ts a matter of dignity to human rights, infact they are legitimate to give life not to take it.\nbut for me, i preffer the psychological effects, what good does it make when the person insist to die, and refuses to live? he/ she may lost sanity when provoked to live.\nwhat good does it do when u see it alive but so dead and numb lost inside. it may hurt and burn us to pain, but i rather have euthanasia be accepted than to see a person i loved in suffering and in a state of life loosing for the reason to live.
300895
Sounds like a lot.  If it is life or death, what choice do you have.  Otherwise, it might be time to ask for a second opinion.
946523
1.       The law doesnot provide for MERCY KILLING infact it is punishable in India.\n 2.        But law cannot force a person to go expensive treatment to save the life.\n3.         If a patient wishes to die the only LEGAL way to do this is to refuse to take any treatment and let the body die its natural course. it will be painful but it is the only way in India.
113037
Yes.  You posted this in Law & Ethics, and good for you, because the religious folk will have a field day with this one.  If a person is suffering and there is no hope for treatment or even for relief, why should we force them to stay alive?
8761
i agree!!\n\nEuthanasia (Greek: ευθανασία - ευ "good", θανατος "death") refers to assisted dying. The assistance ends the life of a person or an animal, in a painless or minimally painful way. Euthanasia is most often performed in a merciful way, in order to end suffering. This article discusses euthanasia in humans; a separate article covers animal euthanasia.\n\nThis topic is often highly-charged—emotionally, politically, and morally. Terminology and laws shift over time and geographically and globally, causing a great deal of confusion.\n\nFirstly there is some debate as to whether euthanasia refers to "letting die" or "allowing to die." (See terms: informed consent, decisional capacity, surrogate decision making, Living wills, Do Not Resuscitate) In the United States and the Netherlands, "letting die" or "allowing to die" refer to areas which the state consider ethically and legally acceptable and permissible. This includes the withholding and withdrawing of medical treatment such as dialysis or feeding tubes or hydration and nutrition. The last two being things which are associated with "love and caring" in most cultures. While the concept of holding off on those two things may be counterintuitive, as a body's major organ systems try to shut down, a dying person often feels most comfortable without any fluids or food. To do otherwise is like "force feeding" a body that does not "want" or need to be fed or hydrated, and doing so may actually cause physical discomfort and suffering.\n\nIn the UK this is usually only accepted when a newly born baby is born with certain physical or mental disorders.\n\nIn most other countries removing or denying treatment would usually be seen as murder. Usually, because in a growing number of law cases over the last 20 years, the jury has sided with the defendant.\n\nNext are several summary statements defining what euthanasia can include,. These are followed by expanded definitions of each. Euthanasia (assisted dying) may employ methods that are either indirect or direct. Indirect methods of euthanasia are defined by a individual him or herself taking the final step inducing death. Direct methods are defined by the involvement of others (clinicians) who take the final step inducing death. Direct euthanasia can either be voluntary, nonvoluntary or involuntary. (See Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche for one of the first uses of the three types of euthanasia.)\n\nIndirect euthanasia involves the indirect involvement of a clinician (e.g. physician, clinical nurse practitioner, pharmacist) as an agent who participates only by providing the means for a patient to induce his/her own death. This could mean writing or filling a prescription for medications in a quantity large enough to cause death when taken by the patient. This kind of assistance is currently legal in the American state of Oregon. It became legal in 1998 as a result of the "Death with Dignity Act" which was passed in the state in 1994. In politically and emotionally loaded terms, this is frequently referred to as physician-assisted suicide.\n\nDirect euthanasia involves the direct involvement of a clinician as agent in inducing a patient’s death. (e.g. administering a lethal drug by injection.) Direct euthanasia is not currently legal anywhere in the US, but both direct and indirect euthanasia are legal in Belgium and the Netherlands.\n\nVoluntary euthanasia occurs with the fully-informed request of a decisionally-competent adult patient or that of their surrogate (proxy). (Example: Thomas Youk, with ALS was assisted by Jack Kevorkian.)\n\nA large part of the controversy surrounding euthanasia focuses upon the slippery slope argument. The fear is that indirect euthanasia and/or voluntary direct euthanasia will lead to acceptance of the nonvoluntary and involuntary types of euthanasia.\n\nNonvoluntary euthanasia
664432
To take my daughter off life support. I found her in bed not breathing...and took her to the ER. They tried for 45 minutes to resucitate(sp) her. And they did. BUt by then her brain had gone without oxygen for so long, she was brain dead. We kept her on machines for 5 days till it became apparent there was nothing that could be done. SO we took her off of life support. SHe died in my arms. It was a hard decision, but I know it was the right one to make.