I was thinking there haven't been many good debate/discussion topics since the Abortion one so I decided to start one on Euthanasia.
I know there are some pretty strong Pro-life and pro-choice people here so what do you think?
Are you for or against Euthanasia (Passive and Active)?
I personally am strongly pro-choice and believe active euthanasia should be legalised (with very strong regulations of course).
Oh ho ho, I'm all for a good moral/ethical debate.
I suppose I'd be for it, so long as you have some sort of terminal disease or something. People just shouldn't be allowed to kill themselves whenever they want to, though.
I'm also pro-choice too, for what that's worth.
We had a big discussion on this in English last year.
I don't think you should kill yourself, honestly, suicide isn't right. However, I DO think people are entitled to their own decisions, and forcing them to not get Euthanasia would be violating their rights given to them by the constitution. So even though I don't think it's the right thing, I'm pro-choice.
How is killing yourself a right given to you by the constitution?
Quote from: Commodore Skellington on December 15, 2007, 02:34:34 PM
How is killing yourself a right given to you by the constitution?
It's interpreted in the Constitution that all citizens have the rights of life, liberty, and property. You have a right to life; the government can't take it away from you for no reason. It said nothing about you not being able to take your own life.
But then again, I have heard that suicide
is illegal in the U.S...but of course, what's the government going to do about it? Put a dead body in jail?
Quote from: MagmarFire on December 15, 2007, 02:47:36 PM
It's interpreted in the Constitution that all citizens have the rights of life, liberty, and property. You have a right to life; the government can't take it away from you for no reason. It said nothing about you not being able to take your own life.
Right, it's says nothing on the matter. Thus it's like the myriad other things the constitution fails to touch upon yet we make laws regarding anyway.
Edit: Removed poorly thought out section. i r teh stoopidzQuoteBut then again, I have heard that suicide is illegal in the U.S...but of course, what's the government going to do about it? Put a dead body in jail?
Do they charge you for attempted suicide, I wonder?
No. They just send you to a psych ward for a month or so.
Alright, what I mean is that I think suicide is wrong because the Bible says it is, but that's a religious thing. No matter how much of a Christian I am, I can't force others to think suicide is wrong. That's where the constitution comes into play--People can believe whatever they want.
Well, I'm not exactly pro-suicide. Just thought I would point that out in case you guys were wondering. ;)
Quote from: JQ Pickwick on December 15, 2007, 03:04:53 PM
No. They just send you to a psych ward for a month or so.
Wouldn't that kind of count as a charge? If someone's suicidal, s/he isn't going willingly, is s/he?
It's not really a 'charge'. You can go by volunteer by recommendation of a doctor... Or under different and extreme circumstances, they could involuntary commit you.
The main thing is that you need and are seeking help, you will get it. But if someone has an episode where they pose a danger to themselves or others, they can be involuntary committed.
Hospitals aren't in any way, shape, or form, prisons.
Quote from: JQ Pickwick on December 15, 2007, 08:53:04 PM
It's not really a 'charge'. You can go by volunteer by recommendation of a doctor... Or under different and extreme circumstances, they could involuntary commit you.
The main thing is that you need and are seeking help, you will get it. But if someone has an episode where they pose a danger to themselves or others, they can be involuntary committed.
Hospitals aren't in any way, shape, or form, prisons.
They might be for some people (if, maybe, you're claustrophobic or something XD ), but... Thank you for telling me this. I haven't thought of it being involuntary depending on the severity of the situation.
Still, why make it illegal if it isn't enforced? That doesn't make much sense...
Picture it this way - a man that assists someone in committing suicide is committing a crime (in most states anyway). However, it would be in very poor taste to try to indict one who is deceased or has had a very close brush with death.
Quote from: MagmarFire on December 15, 2007, 02:47:36 PM
Quote from: Commodore Skellington on December 15, 2007, 02:34:34 PM
How is killing yourself a right given to you by the constitution?
But then again, I have heard that suicide is illegal in the U.S...but of course, what's the government going to do about it? Put a dead body in jail?
Well, there is a city in France (can't remember the name) where it is illegal to die, they fine the family I think, but i'm not sure
There used to be some states in which the penalty for attempted suicide was death. Very silly.
And a while ago there was a brother and sister who's mother was terminally ill with cancer. She asked them to help her die so they overdosed her with morphine. She didn't die because doctors brought her back but the two were charged with manslaughter.
I believe that if I was in as much pain as this woman was, had lost all my dignity and freedom to act by myself and death was inevitable, I would like to be able to die peacefully.
What right have you to say some people's lives are less important than others'? That's sick. Sick and wrong.
We're talking about Self-euthanasia, rather than Euthanasia by someone's orders.
Yes, for Euthanasia, a Living Will needs to be in order. Meaning the person who will be Euthanized has to approve it and say it's what they want.
Quote from: Violinist on December 17, 2007, 01:47:22 PM
What right have you to say some people's lives are less important than others'? That's sick. Sick and wrong.
This is a debate, please don't get angry :)
Dude, she's 10. And an exceptionally gifted ten year old at that.
Plus it was a misunderstanding.
I believe that people who are terminally ill and dying with pain should be able to get euthanasied (sp?). They should have a will, and be taped making their decision so there would be no issues afterwards. People euthanasise pets, why not people for reasons of immense pain? Only the person themself can make that decision however.
Ahh, I love this topic. In my oppinion I think its funny that your family can choose to keep you alive via life support, and choose to kill you by taking you off and you have absolutly no say in the matter. I feel strongly that if you attempt suicide that that is your decision and no medical attention should be given to the patiant. And that if you succeed you should not be called mentally ill. But on the darker side I think that if you attempt suicide and you change you mind at the last minuet then no medical attention should be given. For example, If a person attempts to slit their wrists and after they have done so and are screaming for help because they changed their minds they should not be given help. Mainly because they chose this path, they made their bed. Now they need to lie in it. I mainly think this because I dont think its fair to tell someone that your going to kill yourself, legaly go through with it and after everyone is sad, changes their mind suddenly. But thats just my oppinion. >.o
So, you're going to punish them...for not killing themselves?! Yes, that's a wonderful idea.
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/Commodore_Axilon/Forum%20Crap/linkrolleyes.gif)
I have to examine your points one by one here...
Quote from: Heriophant on December 21, 2007, 04:49:58 PM
Ahh, I love this topic. In my oppinion I think its funny that your family can choose to keep you alive via life support, and choose to kill you by taking you off and you have absolutly no say in the matter.
You have a say in it if you have a living will. If your put on life support, you probably won't be even CLOSE to be fit to make decisions, seeing as you're, you know... Half-dead/unconscious?
QuoteI feel strongly that if you attempt suicide that that is your decision and no medical attention should be given to the patiant. And that if you succeed you should not be called mentally ill.
Wait, what? 'if a person succeeds...' Dude, you're dead. That means you're gone - FINITO! please explain how a deceased patient could be called 'mentally ill' in the present tense, seeing as you know, he's dead...
QuoteBut on the darker side I think that if you attempt suicide and you change you mind at the last minuet then no medical attention should be given.
umm... 'change their mind at the last minute' usually means not carrying out the suicidal plan.
QuoteFor example, If a person attempts to slit their wrists and after they have done so and are screaming for help because they changed their minds they should not be given help. Mainly because they chose this path, they made their bed. Now they need to lie in it. I mainly think this because I dont think its fair to tell someone that your going to kill yourself, legaly go through with it and after everyone is sad, changes their mind suddenly. But thats just my oppinion. >.o
Suicide often happens spontaneously. If, at the last minute, they're going to tell someone, they're going to tell that person out of extreme desperation and extreme panic/chaos.
And people who try to slit their wrists often hide it. They don't go off screaming for help. Most suicides, the death happens silently, without anyone knowing.
People have a right to die by their own rights. But people also have the right to save a life. If something traumatic happens right in front of you, like a suicide or murder... You can bet you'll be shocked right back into your senses.
1) I just dont like the fact that other people can choose whether or not you live or die.
2)I mean that after your dead maybe a doctor might say that said suicide was mentaly ill for making the dicision.
3) I guess your right there.
And I never thought about it for some reason but I guess that if you have a right to death then my oppinion shouldnt take away the same right to life. So from number two down was all a very hipocrytical statement.
Who's to say that suicidal people are mentally fit? It's like saying a murderer is mentally fit, as well...
I mean, if you think about it, suicide is murder. I'm not trying to group all suicidal people and murderers together, don't get me wrong. I mean, some people are like... insane murderers, and do it for no particular reason. Others do it in self-defense or for some crazy "who-has-the-last-laugh-now" thing.
You youself are a person. Murder is the act killing a person. If you kill yourself, a person, you are killing a person and committing murder.
...
...If you're schizophrenic and you kill yourself, is it considered murder?
No, it's considered 'messed up'.
That was sarcasm.
But mental illnesses are really really messy at times. You'd be surprised.
Other people don't choose if you get Euthanasia... 8)
A very controversial topic. On one hand you question that if the person is requesting to die, then maybe theyre not mentally fit to make the decision. On the other hand everyone should be entitled to their own life. Either way, im all for euthanasia(sp?)
I'm all for CHOICE. The right to make a decision is far more important than a 'right for one thing'. If choice does not exist, then everything becomes non-specific... Every little thing must be clear. If things are unclear and vague, then people have no idea what exactly is to be done.
Nothing in life is so clear that everything can be certain, it is not just between two things, but an infinite amount. The point is, someone who wants to die is feeling pain. The only one who is completely capable of understanding what one's choices are is oneself. So in order for other people to understand in the clearest manner possible, these things must be... filled with clarity and distinct description. To be ambigious would mean that you would say nothing either way, as no one would fully understand as you're not having/making them understand.
Quote from: Heriophant on December 24, 2007, 09:46:59 AM
...you question that if the person is requesting to die, then maybe theyre not mentally fit to make the decision.
I don't know about that. For the sake of argument, let's say I'm mentally fit and have cancer. Every day, I'm wracked with unbearable pain, and the doctors can do nothing about it. Death is looking pretty inviting right about now; so, my mind is pretty clear (barring the pain) when I ask them to end my life so I don't have to continue living a tortured existance anymore.
My point is that death isn't the worst thing out there. If someone is in so much pain that they'll even accept death to end it, by all means put them out of their misery. But then again, one should also persuade the person asking for death to wait until they see if there are any other options besides death.
That is exactly why there can be no confusion in the manner, hence why there should be a plan ready for the 'worst case scenario'.
http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/notes/67064-N.asp
Ignore the above link, I'm trying to get somewhere that I found some difficult getting to (no direct link, so must enter in browser).
Quote from: HNS on December 24, 2007, 05:52:39 PM
Quote from: Heriophant on December 24, 2007, 09:46:59 AM
...you question that if the person is requesting to die, then maybe theyre not mentally fit to make the decision.
I don't know about that. For the sake of argument, let's say I'm mentally fit and have cancer. Every day, I'm wracked with unbearable pain, and the doctors can do nothing about it. Death is looking pretty inviting right about now; so, my mind is pretty clear (barring the pain) when I ask them to end my life so I don't have to continue living a tortured existance anymore.
My point is that death isn't the worst thing out there. If someone is in so much pain that they'll even accept death to end it, by all means put them out of their misery. But then again, one should also persuade the person asking for death to wait until they see if there are any other options besides death.
Well its just as JQ said. Nobody knows except for you how badly you are in pain. So then, take your example and turn yourself into a family member of that person. Right now some people might say they want them euthanized(if thats even a real word) But maybe its your mom and you dont want them to die. Then your the only thing standing in their way of not feeling this pain anymore. And as for persuading, that goes back to my mentally fit idea. They are wanting out of this pain so bad they may not want to wait until something else comes along.
If they are old, they have a right to death, but if they are young, they should not have that right.
I highly disagree with that. Why should the old be able to decide whether they live or die? Why? Do children not feel the same pain? Is pain different for the elderly?
Because the elderly have already lived a long life. Children on the other hand, have their whole life ahead of them. Unless of course, they're terminally ill.
...I'd hate to say this, but if like... you're in a coma/have cancer and you don't want to live, your chances of pulling through are significantly less. >_> So if you don't want to live, then you're already probably going to die. You've just got to wait until your body decides to give up, and your brain is telling it that it's hopeless, so~
I believe Euthanasia is the more humane thing to do. If a person is suffering or in a vegitative state where they'll most likely never recover and there's nothing left for them but to just lay there, they should have the right to die if they want.
My extended family is Catholic, and they think euthanasia is a sin. On my dad's side of the family, they've had alot of dogs:
Grandma's Dogs:
Daisy (died of old age)
Tootsie (ran away--I could see why)
Pal (is dying slowly and painfull)
Lilly (is getting old)
My Aunt Jeanne's Dog:
Koda (Died slowly and painfully)
Leica (still alive and well)
My Uncle Mark's Dogs:
Smokey (was put to sleep because he was dying painfully)
Becky (was put to sleep for biting someone)
Eddy (is still alive and well)
My uncle Mark's family, I think, made the smartest deciton.
My aunt, on the other hand, kept her dog until she died. Koda had to have her bladder squeezed so she could pee because she was too weak to do it herself. And every night she couldn't go to sleep, she'd just pace back and forth because she was in pain.
I even said to my mom one time, "If I'm ever in a vegitative state, and I can't talk or move or anything. Please, for the love of god, kill me."
Quote from: Heriophant on December 24, 2007, 09:53:46 PM
Well its just as JQ said. Nobody knows except for you how badly you are in pain. So then, take your example and turn yourself into a family member of that person. Right now some people might say they want them euthanized(if thats even a real word) But maybe its your mom and you dont want them to die. Then your the only thing standing in their way of not feeling this pain anymore. And as for persuading, that goes back to my mentally fit idea. They are wanting out of this pain so bad they may not want to wait until something else comes along.
I think you missed my point. If my mom had cancer, was in constant pain, and science wasn't any where near finding a cure and, knowing this, she asked to be euthanasized, I wouldn't argue. Sure, I don't want her to die, but I don't want her to be in pain for longer than she has to be either. If she's ready to accept death as the only way to escape the suffering, I'm going to grieve, but I'm not going to deny her the peace she sees in death.
At least with Euthanasia you can say a proper good bye to friends and relatives, rather than having some ragged will he be there tommorow so I can see him or wont he, sort of thing. This man whose wife was terminally ill was talking about how (they lived in Holland) she used euthanasia, she had a gathering of all relatives and each one spoke and said their good byes.
Yeah anyway I just think What is the point of living a few weeks/days more, in a vegative state when a few days prior you could say proper good byes and leave peacefully.
After we read the Scarlett Ibis (http://209.184.141.5/westwood/academ/depts/dpteng/L-Coker/VirtualEnglish/Englsih%20I/English%20Ia/scarlet_ibis.htm) in 8th grade, we had a discussion about if it's better to live a short, exciting life, or a long, boring life.
Why does it seem like everyone takes Choice as a mandatory death? They won't kill you if you never said you wanted to be killed. What you do is write a Living Will saying under what circumstances you would like to be Euthanized. Or you designate someone to make that decision for you. But they won't do it without your consent.
Quote from: JQ Pickwick on December 25, 2007, 07:34:35 AM
Because the elderly have already lived a long life. Children on the other hand, have their whole life ahead of them. Unless of course, they're terminally ill.
Haha, so let me get this straight. Im fourteen years old and lets say im in a situation where im not going to die but the unbearable pain that rattles through every peice of my body continues for lets say, another year. You think that since Im a child that has only been alive for 14 years I dont deserve a right to end this horrific pain that I will feel for the next year? But If I was going to die its ok? Or if I was old its ok? You honestly think thats fair?
Define 'unbearable pain'. Sounds more like you'd die by your own hand rather than request legal Euthanasia.
You'd have to define what kind of pain it was. Would it be cancer? Would it be from a great injury? Or would the pain be more psychiatric-related?
You'd have to be more specific with the situation of the pain for the sake of hypothetical statements. Before any proper solution in said scenario could be made.
Why should it even matter? From what I just described obviously the patiant is going through horrible pains. Pain is pain, weather it be phyciatric, cancerous, or just an accident. Either way you might be going through this pain that is really taking its toll on you.
Depends on if you can recover from this debilitating condition, and, if so, how easily, I would think.
The younger you are, the longer you're going to live afterwards. The longer you live, the more productive you can be towards yourself, society, and the species as a whole. Obviously the older you are, the less these things are going to apply, so I don't think young people should have the same rights in this area as an older person.
So basically id only be kept alive to benafit my species via, reproduction, polital wise, or maybe a fighter? Im sorry but thats crap. I deserve every right to end the pain as anyone else. And even if you did recover, how would that exprieance effect you mentally? And why would you even want someone to go through that awfull pain for a whole year? Thats just inhumane.
What kind of pain is it? If it's not a terminal illness, then you don't really know the meaning of pain. If it were a very extensive injury, they'd prescribe painkillers.
But it seems that you're going on about an emotional issue...
In that case, you wouldn't really be requesting Euthanasia as much as you'd seek to commit suicide by any means.
If you're thinking it from the perspective of Euthanasia, then you don't really know what you're talking about. I think we'll just have you carted away to the nearest neuroscience hospital and be done with that.
Think I don't know what I'm talking about?
I know what euthanasia is. You clearly defined it on the first page of this topic. And Im not telling you that you dont know what your talking about, Im just saying that its not right that only the old or teminally ill would have this privaledge. The young should be entiteld to it terminally ill or in extreme PHYSICAL pain. You keep making it sound like I only want it for mentally ill people.
Actually, it sounds more like you want it for yourself. To which case, I'd advise seeking some actual help.
Be specific in the 'circumstances' around which a child may be 'euthanized'. If a thing should exist for a certain group of people, it must exist for a reason, rather than a generality. Which is why it is important to identify the problem before saying 'I want death, kill me now'.
Quote from: Heriophant on December 27, 2007, 08:06:23 PM
So basically id only be kept alive to benafit my species via, reproduction, polital wise, or maybe a fighter? Im sorry but thats crap. I deserve every right to end the pain as anyone else. And even if you did recover, how would that exprieance effect you mentally? And why would you even want someone to go through that awfull pain for a whole year? Thats just inhumane.
Why is that crap? Why is that inhumane? Do you have any actual reasons or are you just going to "bcuz i say so!!11!11!" for the rest of eternity?
And I never said you'd be kept alive solely to benefit anybody, so way to strawman my point there. I'm saying that the older you are, the less you're going to be able to do, thus there are less reasons for you to be kept alive. Or do you for some reason disagree with this?
I don't think anybody here is saying that euthanasia should
only be available to older people, just that it shouldn't be as easy to acquire if you're younger.
No. It was said by JQ that if a child was not terminally ill that they should not be euthanized. Only if they where of old age should they be euthanised. And JQ, never did I say I wanted it for myself. I mearly used my age group as and example. And Commodore I think its in humane because,
1) I may have gotton the wrong idea but you made it sound like the young should be kept alive to benefit the country.
2) Why would you make a child go through that pain for a whole year? I just dont like the idea of it. It just sounds mean.
"So what happened to Jimmy?"
"Oh hes going to be in extreme pain for the next year, but oh well, at least he lives." Yeah that sounds reeeaaal nice.
But why are you using your age group as an example? Under WHAT circumstances would 'grave amount of pain for a year' occur?
Im using my age group as an example for the young. And grave amount of pain for a year can occur in any cicumstance. A car accident, followed by months of painfull rehabilitation, or maybe you have cancer and the treatments are very painful. Things like that. Im in no way suggesting or even hinting that im a mentally ill child who is pro-euthanasia just so i can end my pain. Im sorry if thats the idea that you got.
If you have a good chance of recovery, then why should euthanasia even be an option? Seems to me that's just giving lazy people the option to give up. Some things in life are hard, you know? Killing yourself isn't always the answer.
Im simply suggesting that for the young AND old the option to be euthanised should always be open. But I dont think it should be given to anyone under any circumstance. So I would agree with JQ when he says that it shouldnt be so easily aquired by just anyone. I think the topic has pretty much been answered. We are all so far pro-euthanasia we just have different oppinions on how it should be used.
It should, under NO circumstances be used on the young and non-terminally ill. A person gets treatment to LIVE. Not freaking DIE. If a person's gonna be in pain for a year because of treatments, at least they're going to end up LIVING in the end.
That's one really perception of reality right there. "Let's kill jimmy, even though he's going to live in the end, just because he's in pain now and heavily medicated'.
WHY do you think we have doctors and treatments and all these things?! So that in the end, they'll be able to freaking LIVE! NO sane family would knowingly and willingly authorize a euthanasia, if in the end, the Child is going to live and be healthy again.
You have your oppinion and I have mine. I think that young or old should be able to request euthanasia under certain circumstances. Even if those circumstances are just unbearable physical pain that will be endured for a long period of time. You think that only the old and terminally ill should be able to request it. I dont think theres much more to say in this topic without reaoeting the same thing over again.
But it's not just me that's irritated, it's everyone else here on this site. To us, your reasoning makes absolutely NO sense. It's almost like that one 70+ year old guy who's suing a 19-year old for 'age-ism' because she wouldn't have sex with him.
On the other hand, JQ, it doesn't make much sense to deny a younger person the right to choose to die if they're going to die anyway. If medical science can give them a good chance of recovery, then Commodore is right in asking why should they be given euthanasia as an option? In any circumstance, that should be the last resort.
So basically everyone on this entire website is mad at me because I expressed my oppinion on the matter that was presented? Why is that? Is it a problem that my oppinion is different? Just because im disagreeing with you in a debate? Thats a bit immature dont you think?
Don't listen to JQ in that regard; I'm not mad at you.
Yays! ;D
Quote from: Hi no Seijin on December 28, 2007, 02:08:25 PM
On the other hand, JQ, it doesn't make much sense to deny a younger person the right to choose to die if they're going to die anyway.
It's called 'terminally ill', a point that I keep making, but Heriophant is making a case for them NOT being terminally ill.
We're not mad. That type of thinking just doesn't make any sense to anyone but you. So you have to express it on a point where people WILL understand. But again, still doesn't make sense to kill a kid that's not terminally ill.
The point is that some people may eventually get the idea that it's 'ok' to have someone Euthanised for any reason. Which is really why Euthanasia is EXTREMELY controversial.
In a way, I can see what you're saying. If a kid isn't terminally ill, why kill them if they'll get over it? But what if they're in super, über pain and they'll be like that for a long time? I mean, some people may be able to deal with that. I know I can. The way I see it, is if someone wants to die, they should have the right to die, but they should be required to give it some thought before they actually do. Like how they thought of (or are) making women who are getting abortions to look at their baby through an ultrasound to kind of say "Are you sure you want to kill this baby?". And people called it "blackmail", but it never hurt to think about it.
Going back to Euthanasia...
I just think that like Vaati said, some people might not be able to handle the pain. So maybe theyd like to be uthanised. And I think that anyone should be entitled to this right of death. Not just the old or terminally ill. But I think that they should first understand what exactly uthanasia is.
But would a kid be able to fully and thoroughly understand the concept of being put to death?
Also, a child wouldn't be the one making the decision. A child cannot legally have that type of power, so the decision would fall to the parents, in which case, they probably wouldn't allow that to happen.
True, if I had a child, I wouldn't want them to die, but sometimes it's the best thing. Parents can had sympathy for their kids and practically feel their pain. If my child was suffering in pain so much and I knew it would last so long that he/she won't be able to take it, I'd euthanize him/her.
Now, if you're talking about a toddler, then maybe. But if they're old enough to understand death and that they'll never be able to come back, then they should be allowed to decide. I learned about death when I was three when my brother died. Some kids may have a clearer idea of death at younger ages.
I agree, some parents would wait it out. Others may want to end the pain that the child feels. Dang it Vaati, you keep saying everything I was going to say! Your invading my mind arnt you! *puts on a tinfoil hat*
There are so many 'if's here. 'if' a child feels great pain, 'if' a child understands death in the same way an adult understands death, 'if' a parent would allow it to happen.
The thing though is that there must be a very specific example. A car accident isn't really that much to go by. If they're in a critical/severe condition, then chances are that they'll die anyway, but who are we to make that decision?
In the end, death will come when it comes. Most of us wouldn't really know how much pain would be 'enough' pain.
And even if we did believe that we're doing the 'right thing' for our kid, a strong sense of doubt would still linger on in the back of our minds.
With a critical/serious condition of health, we shouldn't be the ones to tip that ultimate balance...
Hah, it's funny, I can see it now, a politician approving of this, against the parent's wishes. Saying that 'the child was in enough pain'... How much anger will be spread in such a case! We have no real way of knowing just how much pain is truly 'enough'.
You never know, a child can mature after a very serious situation. Say my son got his face blown off by a bomb, or he suffered severe burns. And he could recover in, say, a month. But he was in so much pain, he couldn't sleep, and they had to feed him through a tube. If he told me he wanted to die, I'd ask him "Are you absolutely sure? If you die, you can never come back again. Think about it." If he really didn't want to have to go through a month in extreme pain, I'd kill him if he really wanted. Yes, you can never actually tell how much pain a person is in unless it happened to you. But I'd be driven insane if I had to put up with unresistable pain for a long period of time.
I dont except that. The whole, who are we to tip the scale and what not. We are people. We have feelings. We have every right to play god as long as were doing it for a good reason. Life support is the same thing. If its a persons time to go and theyre put on life support to keep them alive, then the doctors are denying the enevitable and "playing god". I think that if someone is in horrible pain then why should we keep them alive for the rest of their life in this pain. Thats no fair and in my oppinion it would be right to "play god" and put them to rest.
That's what I was saying. If someone really wants to die, then who are we to stop them?
Most of the time when someone wants to die, they are mentally unstable, i.e. not in their right mind. That choice is too powerful and final for someone to make on their own.
Quote from: Vaati on December 28, 2007, 04:02:12 PM
You never know, a child can mature after a very serious situation. Say my son got his face blown off by a bomb, or he suffered severe burns. And he could recover in, say, a month. But he was in so much pain, he couldn't sleep, and they had to feed him through a tube. If he told me he wanted to die, I'd ask him "Are you absolutely sure? If you die, you can never come back again. Think about it." If he really didn't want to have to go through a month in extreme pain, I'd kill him if he really wanted. Yes, you can never actually tell how much pain a person is in unless it happened to you. But I'd be driven insane if I had to put up with unresistable pain for a long period of time.
Except if you had actually been asked that sort of thing, you'd be extremely upset and disturbed. I mean, you nearly lost your kid to a bomb, do you want to lose him for real?
You guys have no iidea how much a real world situation can change from the hypothesis's we venture in our mind. An experience that we may think turn out 'okay' if we simulate them in our head, would turn to a very traumatic, painful one in real life.
I wouldn't want him to die, but I wouldn't want to see him suffer either.
Euthanasia... quite a controversial topic, indeed. WHat do I think of euthanasia personally?
It's a pretty hard thing to form an opinion on, considering how heavy it is (like abortion). It is my personal belief that, if a person is of legal age (18) and in a sane state of mind, they should have the choice of whether to terminate their life or not because they are horribly ill/severely handicapped.
Now, what if somebody is not able to form decisions in their state of being? Then I think that the family, as a whole, should come to a decsion on that person's fate based on what they think/know that person would want.
Of course, this should not be an easily made decision. I think a patient should be given sufficient time to think over and analyze the situation before coming to a final verdict (i.e, a "window period" were that person may contemplate whether or not they want to be euthanised).
This procedure however, would of course have various regulations and would have to be monitored carefully. And if a person is younger than legal age (18), I believe that they should come to a decision with their parents/guardians on their fate.
That is all. Feel free to comment, and don't flame me to death if you disagree, please. ;)
The hard thing about deciding is that you can never know what they're experiencing unless you've been through it yourself. I think euthanasia should only be used when there is absolutely no chance at recovering and the patient is is immense pain. It would be hard for the family and others, but you have to look out for the person first. I do agree that it is the patient's decision first, and must have many regulations.
I agree with silver key.
Quote from: Peka on December 28, 2007, 09:09:45 PM
I think euthanasia should only be used when there is absolutely no chance at recovering and the patient is is immense pain.
BOTH of these qualities must be satisfied in order for someone to qualify for Euthanasia in my honest opinion. I don't think one or the other by itself would be cause enough to allow it.
I think it could be either one. Emense pain or terminal illness.
Quote from: Heriophant on December 28, 2007, 04:20:39 PM
We have every right to play god as long as were doing it for a good reason.
... We are humans. We are not gods. Don't get the two mixed up, please. >: Ever see Jurassic Park? They played God. See what happened to them?
We're not children, after all. :3
But were do we draw the line of human and "god"? We can open up a skull and fix the brain inside. We can split two people who have always been combined. We can remove the organs from others and give them to the dying. Yet, by puting someone out of their pain it is considered evil and "playing god". But thats only seems to aply if we're killing them. If we give them life then it has nothing to do with the gods. So actually Fisk, I dont see the difference. We create life every day, we give it, we take it. In a way, we are all gods.
Quote from: Heriophant on December 30, 2007, 03:49:26 PM
But were do we draw the line of human and "god"? We can open up a skull and fix the brain inside. We can split two people who have always been combined. We can remove the organs from others and give them to the dying. Yet, by puting someone out of their pain it is considered evil and "playing god". But thats only seems to aply if we're killing them. If we give them life then it has nothing to do with the gods. So actually Fisk, I dont see the difference. We create life every day, we give it, we take it. In a way, we are all gods.
How arrogant. Scientists do not think like men who want to be gods. So it's really stupid to try to put that argument right there. Scientists do it for the progress of humanity, rather than any control freak like Hitler or Stalin that wanted to be recognized as 'gods' by everyone.
So what if we can do a lot to make life better? We are no closer to being gods in the ultimate sense than hundreds of years ago. We are not gods and we will NEVER be gods. heh... even when we seek the power of gods, it will be meaningless. So don't try to compare humanity to gods, that would be... pointless.
How so? The gods, they created the trees, the people, they gave life were it was lifeless. We do that every day. I dont know how to explain it. We in an essance do the same things that the gods did. And I never said that scientists think like men who want to be gods. I said that we have accomplished so much that we can do things like give life, or death. We can grow new trees in a desolate wasteland. We may not do things like turn water to wine and what not but we do so many things that the gods have to. I do apologize for bringing sort of religious chat into this. It was not my intentions. But your right JQ, we will never be gods, it would be pointless to seek that ability. But we do things that if we did them thoudads of years ago, we would have been the definition of the word god. We are typing on a machine that can send a message anywhere in the world. And that in our time, is not even amazing. Its things like that, that made people call them gods. What Im getting at is that we do amazing things. And they should not be judged by people claiming that we play god.
Quote from: Heriophant on December 30, 2007, 03:49:26 PM
But were do we draw the line of human and "god"?
Okay, I honestly don't really believe in gods, but, well, Gods and People are not the same thing.
God: A being conceived as
perfect, omnipotent, omniscient.
Just going off of that definition... we are nothing alike. Perhaps you have heard the term "Nobody's perfect?" We're all flawed. I don't just mean physically, either. Even children aren't totally innocent. /:
Don't
ever say that a person has the right to play God. Yes, we can perform brain surgery and separate conjoined twins. But you know what? It still causes scars. People can still die. Surgery is not the same thing as "Playing God."
Surgery is a risk. Gods are perfect.
Im not saying that were perfect. Im saying that things like the topic of euthanasia or cloning make some people say that its playing god. But they wouldnt say that if we're saving a life. Yes, surgery is a risk. Yes it kills people. But why dont we have the right to use something that will HELP people? Because we're acused of "playing god"? When I say we have every right, I mean that we shouldnt let those acusations stop us from doing what can help, even if it has the risk of death.
Ah, you posted before I did, I didn't see that.
I honestly... erm, don't like modern medicine. Sure, we could save things and people... but if we get cancer, we're supposed to die, not get over it. We're over-populated because we live. We're ruining the world.
Call me mentally unfit all you want for this, but if I get into a car accident, or get cancer or if something happens where if it weren't for medicine, I'd have died... Well, I'd want to die. I don't care about "oh, we can save her."
I suppose that's "wrong" in the context of modern day society, but... I honestly think that's the best way to go. /:
On a completely different note:
u_u;; I feel bad that we kill animals and euthanise them when they were hit by a car, or something like that. They're no less than we are... so why don't as many people struggle to keep them alive? Or why don't we try to rehabilitate "vicious" animals like we do to people?
Do you even know what you're talking about? The MAJORITY would not agree with your assertion of something that helps people as 'playing god', even if it's about stem cell research. To that effect, it is the potent religious that see it as 'playing god'. Not everyone else.
Yes, I do know what Im talking about. Im not trying to get the world to see things the way I do. Im mearly expressing my oppinion. And as for what you said Fisk. I dont think thats weird at all. And your right. Our constant "we can save them" is overpopulating the world. You have a point. And its not weird that you dont want to be saved by modern medicines. Thats how my great grandmother wanted to die.
Quote from: Fisk on December 30, 2007, 03:16:36 PM
Quote from: Heriophant on December 28, 2007, 04:20:39 PM
We have every right to play god as long as were doing it for a good reason.
... We are humans. We are not gods. Don't get the two mixed up, please. >: Ever see Jurassic Park? They played God. See what happened to them?
Of course, the were giving life to ruthless, man-eating animals, and but killing someone who really wants to be killed well, that a little different.
It would appear to me that this discussion is drifting more along the lines of what a God is or is not. even though it has been said in previous posts, I just have to say it in my own way here.
HUMANS ARE NOT GODS.
Humans are flawed. Humans destroy things, humans are selfish, and humans are nowhere near perfect. No matter what religion you are, or if you don't even have one to begin with, a human being can never be even compared to a holy being becuase humans are simply not worthy.
Dismal outlook, but it's my personal belief.
Also, I consider killing yourself to be playing God. You're meddling with God's (or Fate's, however you want to look at it) plans for your life, and cutting it short of your own desires and of your own accord. That's why I wouldn't do it. However, I realize I can't hold everyone to my beliefs, and that's why I'm pro-choice. Everyone should be able to do what suits them.
Dang! I thought this post died! ???
Im not saying we are gods. Im mearly stating that I think we have the right to do certain things that are benefiting the health or well being of the human or animal race but is judged as playing god. I think that we have that right.
But we should NEVER be thought as 'playing' God if what we are doing is benefiting the whole of humanity. That type of accusation just... Doesn't make any sense.
It's because you're messing with the natural order, the way things were supposed to have happened.
We're messing with the natural order by simply existing. Seeing how we're having too much influence over the earth's ecosystems and so forth.
Exactly. Just making room for our own civilization messes with the natural order of things.