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.
It's all euthanasia to me. The legal difference doesn't really matter much when the topic here isn't comparing the two. Everyone is focusing too much on little details.
I understand and fully acknowledge the points behind the reasons people are giving as to why it should be legal. I just think we need to look at why these people are choosing what should be a last resort and focusing our resources on what we can do to improve these peoples' quality of life. Maybe better access to in-home care. Maybe legalisation of more types of medications. Whatever we can do
Are you going to stop death? Because that's what makes the difference.
I take it you have never watched someone die. I'm a young adult cancer survivor. I have been with friends in their early 20s in their last days. We don't live in a state that yet has assisted suicide - and it's gruesome. No legalization of more types of medication, in-home care, or anything would change the fact that these people are slowly having every organ in their body eaten away by cancer and are painfully dying.
If you're going to die in the next few months anyway, what problem could ANYONE have with someone choosing to make it come faster and more peacefully when the bad days far outnumber the good?
Not every country works like yours and I don't need to learn all about American laws and health providers in order to discuss a global topic.
The majority of C-D members live in the United States so while you might think it's a "global topic" but you can't ignore that each country has their own laws on assisted suicide.
If you want a discussion about assisted suicide you need to specify what country and what laws you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw
when the goal is already achievable on its own, albeit in less comfortable ways.
Right, like when my dog had cancer we had to throw him off a bridge to kill him because gosh forbid we wanted to do the humane thing and have him euthanized.
Are you aware of how ridiculous you are sounding?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw
Killing is universally unethical and to put a government stamp on certain forms of it defies this principle. Court systems will now have the ability to rule other forms of killing (crimes of passion, death penalty, non-consensual mercy killing etc) as just. We have seen time and time again this type of domino effect when basic legal principles are complicated
Whose legal principles? In what country does your hypothetical situation occur in?
Maybe not, but you do need to describe the kinds of situations that you are talking about. Which you have deliberately refused to do.
If you didn't want to talk to americans, why post on a forum full of americans?
I didn't mean to make things confusing.
Assisted suicide has been legalised in Canada, meaning soon my tax dollars will go towards killing people, something I am not comfortable with. I'm fine with whatever Americans decide to do in their own country, it's not my business. But the purpose of this thread was to discuss this topic as an ethics topic, not just about American legal system. This was posted in the politics forum, because I thought it would be more general political discussion rather than just US issues
I feel like things are getting too heated, which I never intended. Maybe we should close this thread
I didn't mean to make things confusing.
Assisted suicide has been legalised in Canada, meaning soon my tax dollars will go towards killing people, something I am not comfortable with. I'm fine with whatever Americans decide to do in their own country, it's not my business. But the purpose of this thread was to discuss this topic as an ethics topic, not just about American legal system. This was posted in the politics forum, because I thought it would be more general political discussion rather than just US issues
I feel like things are getting too heated, which I never intended. Maybe we should close this thread
So exactly how does the Assisted Suicide law work in Canada? Do patients have to be terminal? Must the patient administer her/his own dose, or can someone else administer it if the patient is physically unable? Does the patient have to be mentally competent? How must the patient ask for the prescription?
So exactly how does the Assisted Suicide law work in Canada? Do patients have to be terminal? Must the patient administer her/his own dose, or can someone else administer it if the patient is physically unable? Does the patient have to be mentally competent? How must the patient ask for the prescription?
Yes to all except needing to administer their own dose. They have to request it themselves without any outside pressure. The law was passed very recently after a long parliamentary process and has yet to come into force. As of now a court order is required, but this is only temporary.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,521,355 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw
I'm left-leaning on the overwhelming majority of issues, but the euthanasia debate has me scratching my head. With liberals generally being against the death penalty and wars, and supportive of extending people's lives through socialised health care (all things which I agree with), why would they then be in favour of paying doctors to end lives unnaturally?
Ending life support or "pulling the plug" is not a fair analogy as that is artificially extending life. We only get one life.
Without our life, everything we know is gone. We cease to exist in the world as we know it when we die. People who are perfectly capable of living on their own would not make the conscious decision to die while in a sound mental state. It's impossible to rationalise.
Everyone has the right to die, speaking literally. Death is guaranteed to everyone. As harsh as it may sound, and while I am totally against this decision, I think it's fair to say that if one does not possess the willpower to take it into their own hands the task of ending their life, it's unethical to ask a doctor to do so, and they would have to have some hesitations in a decision that can never be undone if they refuse to carry it out own their own.
You must not work in critical care healthcare and see the unthinkable suffering and torture that goes on, often for long periods at a time.
It's also funny you keep talking about "unnatural death", when many of these people are "unnaturally alive" when the time comes to make this decision. Living with a hole in your trachea that is connected to a plastic tube connected to a machine that calculates the amount of pressure to push into and out of your lungs to keep you alive while at the same time you have a tube in your urethra collecting your urine, multiple invasive IV's that have vasoactive drugs going through them to keep your blood pressure at a level that can sustain life, a machine that weighs more than you that takes your blood, attempts to filter it as well as the kidneys, then gives it back to you, and a big hole in your sacrum because you have been bedbound for months. That doesn't sound like being naturally alive, so how about we let people in situations like that have a last bit of dignity and make the decision to die in a peaceful manner.
Progressives (the true reasonable ones, not the whacko SJW regressives) generally support this because they have nuanced thoughts and opinions...not just "I'm against the death penalty so I need to be against EVERYTHING involving death". The abortion argument already throws a wrench in your premise, though not all Progressives have the same opinions on that either.
Last edited by ForYourLungsOnly; 07-10-2016 at 06:58 AM..
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,521,355 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw
That's rough, I'm sorry your wife has to go through that.
My issue is that choosing ones time of death is not a human right that ought to be enhanced by implicating another person. This can't be about personal freedom when the goal is already achievable on its own, albeit in less comfortable ways. Killing is universally unethical and to put a government stamp on certain forms of it defies this principle. Court systems will now have the ability to rule other forms of killing (crimes of passion, death penalty, non-consensual mercy killing etc) as just. We have seen time and time again this type of domino effect when basic legal principles are complicated
You must not be much into philosophy. There are absolutely instances where killing is a moral act, or at least a more moral act than not killing. If there was a building full of children on an island, and there was a person on the island that was going to push a button to detonate a bomb that would blow the building up, incinerating all the children inside of it, would it be ethical to shoot the man who was about to push the button? This man has proclaimed that he is 100% going to do it, and any attempt to approach him or the island will result in detonation. The only way to possibly stop this is shooting the man from afar. Are you saying that killing the man in this instance is not ethical?
I didn't mean to make things confusing.
Assisted suicide has been legalised in Canada, meaning soon my tax dollars will go towards killing people, something I am not comfortable with. I'm fine with whatever Americans decide to do in their own country, it's not my business. But the purpose of this thread was to discuss this topic as an ethics topic, not just about American legal system. This was posted in the politics forum, because I thought it would be more general political discussion rather than just US issues
I feel like things are getting too heated, which I never intended. Maybe we should close this thread
OK, OK, I got it...
The OP, who lives in Canada - that has universal healthcare, for which every citizen pays taxes - has a problem with his/her monies going towards assisting suicide, for which s/he is personally and ethically against. Is this right? Your problem is that your government controlled healthcare system provides this service, using your Canadian tax dollars? If this is the case, I'm afraid you didn't quite make that clear enough up front.
And I can more understand your position. But...
Every government in the world uses tax dollars in many ways that offend someone. There isn't a group in the US, Canada, UK, Lithuania, Togo, etc., that isn't offended in some way, shape, form or fashion by their government's specific uses of taxes. Group A states they don't have kids, so why should their taxes go to education? Group B are pacifists and claim they don't want their money to support the military. Group C states they are financially secure & healthy and don't need their taxes going to universal healthcare. I could go on all day listing these groups.
So this is your group. You pay taxes all the time that go to things you disagree with. So what? So does everyone else in the world. It's part and partial to being a member of society.
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.
