Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My body, my choice. Euthanasia should be a Human right . Making it illegal is simply forcing loved ones to act illegally and to suffer the potential consequences .
Human beings should have the right to die with Dignity when THEY choose to . It is the ultimate Human right , the right to die when you wish to.
We do have more consideration and empathy towards our pets than ourselves which makes no sense whatsoever.
I do not wish to live in excruciating pain for years, or as a vegetable. Some may feel differently and that too should be their right. At the end of the day there should be a system in place whereby you make plans , a kind of written contract which can be discussed with your relatives and doctors whilst you are still capable of. I would suggest that two or three Physicians be involved to make the process more transparent and not reliant on only one person.
I do not see why I have to spend thousands of dollars to go to Switzerland to end my life in a dignified manner or why my Husband should be facing jail if he helps me out of my suffering.
Of course there have to be some forms of checks but a well regulated system is something which any civilised society should have in place.
It is my body, I am the one who has to live in it with the pain and the lack of quality of life so how dare anyone tell me what to do with my body ? It seems arrogant beyond belief and a form of torture.
There are lots of reasons to accept Euthanasia, and I see most of the posters agree it has a place in the end of life choices. I have read a lot of the concerns which people raise in the debate on making it legal for humans. They center on morality, and Theological concerns. On this forum I understand why we don’t have the theological concerns, and I am glad we don’t, as for morality I have to question is it moral to allow yourself to suffer endless while taking your families economic foundation down the toilet. There are negatives and I think the biggest is the burden on the medical staff who would be needed to approve any such action. There would need to be a dual system to confirm the person should be eligible to make such a decision, and I personally think it needs to be the decision of the person not his family or his doctors. Death is a personal issue, not a team decision. Lots of hard questions on Quality of Life, Cost to continue on for days of months, pain involved, and things you need to finish before your are gone if that really matters. I know I don’t want to be a vegetable in a rest home, or watching as I slowly have my entire mental abilities fad away. Sometimes death is a gift, we just need to learn not to fear what is natural for all of us, and help it along if we need to.
to lay there and suffer or have your life prolonged by modern medicine has to be torture of the worst kind..why would you be so cruel? why would you be so cruel to yourself? if there's no hope for better, end it..I would hope if my life loses its quality that I can die with dignity..that I can end what is not living, but merely existing!
I do not understand a society who puts down "humanely" puts down animals to allieviate their suffering while forcing humans to stay alive against their will.
Animals don't have large net worths, estates, wills and LAWYERS, that's why.
Harriet McBryde Johnson is a notable atheist who opposed euthanasia. Here's some by her.
Unspeakable Conversations - NYTimes.com - "God didn't put me on this street to provide disability awareness training to the likes of them. In fact, no god put anyone anywhere for any reason, if you want to know." (In other interviews she also described herself as a Democrat and an atheist)
For many who are congenitally disabled, like her and me (granted I'm not atheist), we might see this very different. Doctors certainly have been willing to give up on me and give up on me when neither me nor my family have. Elements of society certainly are willing to tell me my life is a burden and that people like me should never have been born. (The following is an article about a mother with my condition, osteogenesis imperfecta, this should get you to the comments section to show what I mean)
For people like me and the late Ms Johnson there's a real, and I don't think unrealistic, fear that allowing people to die can easily dovetail in pressuring some people to die. So at the very least strong safeguards on the practice I think can make sense without any religious element. (Particularly in Johnson's case as she was atheist)
Harriet McBryde Johnson is a notable atheist who opposed euthanasia. Here's some by her.
Unspeakable Conversations - NYTimes.com - "God didn't put me on this street to provide disability awareness training to the likes of them. In fact, no god put anyone anywhere for any reason, if you want to know." (In other interviews she also described herself as a Democrat and an atheist)
For many who are congenitally disabled, like her and me (granted I'm not atheist), we might see this very different. Doctors certainly have been willing to give up on me and give up on me when neither me nor my family have. Elements of society certainly are willing to tell me my life is a burden and that people like me should never have been born. (The following is an article about a mother with my condition, osteogenesis imperfecta, this should get you to the comments section to show what I mean)
For people like me and the late Ms Johnson there's a real, and I don't think unrealistic, fear that allowing people to die can easily dovetail in pressuring some people to die. So at the very least strong safeguards on the practice I think can make sense without any religious element. (Particularly in Johnson's case as she was atheist)
I think that is why it has to be a personal choice, not family, not doctors, just the person suffering.
The level of pain and situation for each individual varies. I think I could live on with high levels of pain as I have already done so, and with pain could make my own decision. The harder issue is if you mind fades slowly away. I just would not want to continue with out my mind, which brings the dilemma of making a decision prior to the time you lose the ability to make such a decision. This may be the classic Catch 22, if you opt to do something (in this case assisted death) than you are crazy and are not allowed to do it, if you don’t opt to do the assisted death than you are sane and are allowed to kill yourself, which is something you would not do anyway. With this logic I am not sure assisted deaths could be done for the area I worry about the most.
Given the high religious temperature of this country, I doubt that euthanasia would be encouraged any more than abortions are encouraged. I do suspect that clinics or doctors who performed it would be a target.
I think cncracer is correct about the Catch 22. I think it's one of life's evils to be forced to live when you are sane enough to choose death - like in the cases of terminable, debilitating diseases. I am hoping I escape this fate.
[quote=peppermint;15001904]Given the high religious temperature of this country, I doubt that euthanasia would be encouraged any more than abortions are encouraged. I do suspect that clinics or doctors who performed it would be a target.
quote]
I would think the assisted death would not be a walk in clinic. I would prefer to be somewhere pleasant, at home, or drifting on the open sea with no other person knowing what I was doing other than those who assisted me. I am stubborn enough to come back and haunt anybody who would disturb my restful passing. If it were a Westboro Baptist Church, I would make sure they never had another good nights sleep as long as they lived. LOL
I keep thinking of my Great Aunt who lived to 106 and passed away with no assistance. She was active, alert, and sharp to the last day and died watching the news, drinking a glass of red wine, and snacking on a box of Godiva chocolates. I am sure if she had not died she would have been debating the downfall of our political system over dinner that night. Make that a cheese sandwich and that would be a fine way to go.
Given the high religious temperature of this country, I doubt that euthanasia would be encouraged any more than abortions are encouraged. I do suspect that clinics or doctors who performed it would be a target.
The US has one of the highest abortion rates in the world. We also have some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world. Getting an abortion at 20 weeks is much easier in the US than Sweden if I've read the laws right. Getting one at 16 weeks is easier than in highly secularist France if I read their law right. I've read of German women who come to the US to get abortions.
Us Americans have a curious, almost paradoxical, mix of religiosity and intense individualism. Also I think one author said our credo is "optimism and denial." Abortion allows a woman to deny she ever had an unmarried pregnancy, which might help her socially and in her career. Lastly abortion is generally cheaper than giving birth, going by the stats I've found, and there isn't much to protect pregnant women in the workforce. So in many cases it's economically more feasible to abort among the poor and unmarried. (France has a very pro-natalist system so it's different) Hence some Republicans once supported abortion as a way to reduce the amount born to poor unwed women as such kids were seen as potentially a drain.
I watched both of my grandparents die in a lot of pain but I don't think either of them would have chosen to die. They were both too stubborn to give in, especially my grandfather. It has to be only the choice of the individual because, as has been mentioned before, it could easily become a matter of convenience for the family and caregivers. There are organisations that cater to people who wish to have that choice at the end of their life and they give you various painless methods of doing away with yourself, "Exit International" is one that comes immediately to mind.
The thing I find most interesting about this whole debate is that the people who most vehemently oppose it are those who believe in an afterlife, that their loved ones would be going to a better place after they die. When you look at it, it just doesn't make sense. Why would these people insist on keeping their loved ones from such a wonderful place as heaven and drag out a painful and meaningless existence on Earth? But then, I find very little about religious ideas that make sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
