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.
Here is a story about an American vet who was wounded in Irag. He has suffered for many years, and his condition is not expected to improve. This is just one example for this discussion. There are many people that suffer from terminal illnesses and deteriorating conditions that diminish their quality of life.
Are there any situations when the taking of one's life can be viewed as morally justifiable or is it morally wrong to do so based on other compelling reasons?
I plan to control the main points of my life, including the ending. As another poster mentioned, I think it is astonishing that we do not let our pets suffer, but we require other humans to suffer.
I plan to control the main points of my life, including the ending. As another poster mentioned, I think it is astonishing that we do not let our pets suffer, but we require other humans to suffer.
alphamale made an interesting point about life insurance. With our pets it's simple and humane and there's no money to be fought over.
Then you have bureaucrats place regulations and restrictions on it.
Then you have boards who set standards for who can have an assisted suicide.
Then you have mandates.
The problem is this....who decides when a life should end? Was the person coerced? Life insurance greed will come into play.
It's a slippery slope.
"Data from the two states where physician-assisted suicide is legal shows that “slippery-slope” fears are probably overblown. Very few patients take advantage of death with dignity laws: Last year, just 114 people received lethal prescriptions in Oregon and 103 in Washington. In both states, about a third of those patients ultimately didn’t use the drugs."
Oregon was the first state to pass the Death with Dignity Act. Based on their statistics, "slipery slope" arguments about unscrupulous stuff happening does not seem to be an issue. This is because they have checks and balances in place and things like sign offs required by multiple doctors, etc. Sems to me like they have it well thought out.
[quote]These fears have not been borne out in Oregon,2,5 where patients choosing assisted dying are overwhelmingly white and, on average, more financially secure and more highly educated than the general population. After 13 years, the number of patients who die from lethal medication has stabilized at 30 to 50 per year, and the state has not attempted to broaden the eligibility requirements or prescription mechanisms. Oregon has reported no cases of coerced requests for lethal medication; indeed, the system's safeguards (waiting periods and psychiatric evaluation) are much more stringent than those for the well-accepted practices of withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining treatment.
Yes they do. It's as simple as that, and there should be humane alternatives for these people so that they don't have to be forced to blow their brains out, poison themselves with Carbon Monoxide, hang themselves, or jump off bridges and buildings. Certainly a person should go through an assessment process and intensive counselling, but if they are still hell-bent on ending their own lives, they should be given barbiturates or another safe, not-unpleasant means to end their lives under medical supervision.
There are thousands of suicides in North America each year. If the right to die was legislated, many of these suicides would not happen if they went through the process of assessment and counselling required. For those who still don't change their mind, at least they could die in a controlled environment, using drugs like seconal-pentobarbital that simply makes you fall asleep and never wake up, under medical supervision. Sounds a heck of a lot better than the status quo, and much more humane.
Apparently people do and have carried out their desires.
It should be discouraged at a legal and spiritual level but whose to stop you.
The problem is centered around whoever may help you.
Sounds like a living will would go a long way to differentiate murders from helpful friends. Even so the law would be broken and a crime proved by that document. Preparation is key.
Philosophical argument when governments encourage/enable/ endorse people who can no longer contribute to the tax base leaves us with institutional murder.
In the hands of the justice system, lawyers and politicians who would trust their lives and the lives of their loved ones to the government bureaucrats.
Don't you just love that legislation that some states floated, where your organs will be donated by default unless you take the initiative to fill out some form. The greatest irony is the same political agenda decries the rules that voters, who have 4 years to obtain free voter id to vote, are being deprived of their rights.
So the current administration supporters are telling you they want to ensure your right to vote but deny your rights to keep your body organs.
You trust those folks won't bend and twist the rules as explained to you today into something else tomorrow based on some court appeal?
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.
