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.
Comparing animals to humans is like comparing a peanut to a watermelon. That's an unfair comparison. .
Really? Bc I work next to a state institution for the mentally disabled, many of whom live their entire lives contracted in a bed, lying in their own feces...who will never talk, never walk, can't eat for themselves, can't communicate...but we insist on spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep these people alive and in misery...my dog is more human than these 'people.'
Really? Bc I work next to a state institution for the mentally disabled, many of whom live their entire lives contracted in a bed, lying in their own feces...who will never talk, never walk, can't eat for themselves, can't communicate...but we insist on spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep these people alive and in misery...my dog is more human than these 'people.'
While theoretically valid, this is NOT a condoned use for euthanasia.
This example steers euthanasia away from it's intended purpose; to provide a medical service to those who are in pain, terminally ill and have exhausted all other forms of treatment. The patient themselves, and themselves only, should have the right to decide if/when to end their own suffering.
Despite being invalids, do these institutionalized people want to die? Want to end their suffering? Despite their disabilities, no one has the right to say they should be dead - or to choose for them to die rather. If euthanizing the disabled became mainstream, where does society and the medical professionals draw the line? If you had a child who developed a spinal cord tumor as a child, causing the child to become paraplegic/quadriplegic, should he/she be euthanized? Should the severely depressed have the right to be euthanized even though they are "medically" healthy?
I know of a woman, maybe 35 years old who had this exact unfortunate example happen to her (botched tumor resection, resulting in quadriplegia). She went to college, earned a BS in mathematics and holds a job. She is extremely disabled and has limited functionality, but is happy to be alive.
Severely disabled individuals may in fact be living a rather miserable existence, but we have no right determining if they are fit to live or die. I see your point and logic, but that is an example of unethical use euthanasia.
We really have two different types of death under discussion:
1. The euthanasia of others without their consent or knowledge.
2. The "assisted suicide" (please someone, think of a different term.) of a person who makes the CHOICE to die.
These are two entirely different things. One of them, should never be considered as it leads to that dreadful slippery slope of killing the innocent and helpless. But the other is something that we can look at as an option to a life that is full of pain of one kind or another.
Don't people that desire death have a right to that death?
Why does society insist that they live? What is so wrong with making a choice to stop one's own suffering?
While theoretically valid, this is NOT a condoned use for euthanasia.
This example steers euthanasia away from it's intended purpose; to provide a medical service to those who are in pain, terminally ill and have exhausted all other forms of treatment. The patient themselves, and themselves only, should have the right to decide if/when to end their own suffering.
Despite being invalids, do these institutionalized people want to die? Want to end their suffering? Despite their disabilities, no one has the right to say they should be dead - or to choose for them to die rather. If euthanizing the disabled became mainstream, where does society and the medical professionals draw the line? If you had a child who developed a spinal cord tumor as a child, causing the child to become paraplegic/quadriplegic, should he/she be euthanized? Should the severely depressed have the right to be euthanized even though they are "medically" healthy?
I know of a woman, maybe 35 years old who had this exact unfortunate example happen to her (botched tumor resection, resulting in quadriplegia). She went to college, earned a BS in mathematics and holds a job. She is extremely disabled and has limited functionality, but is happy to be alive.
Severely disabled individuals may in fact be living a rather miserable existence, but we have no right determining if they are fit to live or die. I see your point and logic, but that is an example of unethical use euthanasia.
Nazi doctors did just that......
Ok...do you know the difference between a disabled person and a vegetable? Seriously? You are making an argument against nothing anyone said.
I wouldn't euthanize the people I was talking about...but I would be in favor of nature taking its course.
Ok...do you know the difference between a disabled person and a vegetable? Seriously? You are making an argument against nothing anyone said.
I wouldn't euthanize the people I was talking about...but I would be in favor of nature taking its course.
Seriously? What was your post about - "what's the point of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars keeping disabled people alive"????
YOUR the one who left your post up to misinterpretation. You blatantly made it seem like disabled were money wasting, subhumans.
You now mention "your in favor of letting nature run it's course". Your aware most of these disabled people will live decades, costing millions (since money was your concern)? What was the scope of your post then? Animals are more human than the disabled?
Give me a break. If I misinterpreted your thread fine; but don't bash me, your post could have been interpreted in a few different ways.
Last edited by cerebral_cortex; 03-01-2011 at 10:57 AM..
Thank you, cerebral_cortex. I have an adult son with Down syndrome who still lives at home with us. Unless someone is actually working with or is a family member of someone that is disabled, they really have no place making a judgment on the quality of life. If the government did not spend the money taking care of the people, they would just spend more on the mating habits of flies! I believe that everyone's fear that there will be misuse is justified. I would not want to end up in a situation where I felt obligated to die because of the financial means test and that would apply to my loved ones and anyone. I thought that with something like Hospice care that they gave as much medication as needed for pain and, well, at a certain point with that amount of medication.....................And, we had a neighbor that lived to be 104 and was able to put up his own storm windows so would he have been worth the cost of "repair" when he was say, 75? Not to mention the number of patients that doctors said would be dead in so many months and the patient did not comply. It would be difficult to regulate.
I have a cousin with CP and he's also autistic. He can't coordinate his movements too well, and his speech is limited, but he's one of the happiest, most fun-loving kids I've ever met...an absolute joy to be around! Disability does not mean a poor quality of life at all...it just means a different method of communication in many cases, or limited physical ability. Just because he can't have a full-on conversation with us doesn't mean he doesn't understand what's going on around him and what's being said...his mother recently decided to have gastric bypass surgery, and apparently when she was still in the decision-making process he looked at her and said something they couldn't make out right away...so he repeated it until they understood...what he said to her was "Eat salad"...LOL! Smart kid!
We really have two different types of death under discussion:
1. The euthanasia of others without their consent or knowledge.
2. The "assisted suicide" (please someone, think of a different term.) of a person who makes the CHOICE to die.
These are two entirely different things. One of them, should never be considered as it leads to that dreadful slippery slope of killing the innocent and helpless. But the other is something that we can look at as an option to a life that is full of pain of one kind or another.
Don't people that desire death have a right to that death?
Why does society insist that they live? What is so wrong with making a choice to stop one's own suffering?
personally i believe everyone should have the right to choose if they want to live or die, not only if there terminally ill or ancient lol, mentally ill etc. Also if it was controlled people would be less inclined to do it on there own leaving there familes or friends (if they have any) with a horrific surprise which only cause more trauma. at least this way families could say goodbye the person who wants to die could be counseled and maybe even talked out of it, right now people hae no clue when a person is suicidal and nothing can be done to help them.
I don't understand the controversy behind euthanizing terminaly ill patients at their request. Physician assisted euthanasia is a perfectly valid and necessary medical service and should be offered in all palliative care and end of life situations at the patients discretion...
"Terminally ill" is undefinable. An MS patient should have the same choice to die as someone with ALS, even though MS isn't considered a terminal illness, it sure can debilitate ones existence...
This is all common sense and I don't understand how people argue against it.
I'm DEAD SET against euthansia of ill patients, whether it's terminal or not. No one has the right to take the life of another...even if asked to....If someone is ill, and doesn't think they'll want to live when their illness becomes worse, then it's up to THEM to do something about it now, while they still can...cause if they wait too long, they may no longer be able...there's NO WAY they should ask, or expect someone else to do it for them....A Physicians job is to give life....not end it, and I feel that if they end a patients life on purpose it`s no different than murder......Part of the original Hippocratic Oath that doctors still take is:...I will not give a fatal drought to anyone if I am asked, nor will I suggest any such thing`....
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.
