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.
Frankly, the tone of that post is completely inappropriate and obstructs real discussion.
Even Nazi Germany didn't try hard to euthanize people with Down's Syndrome. If people wanted to raise kids like that, they could. Cases where caring for kids is extremely difficult medically is what we're talking about, as in stays in bed all day attached to a machine and unable to communicate. That's not much of a life and most adults would not want to be kept going on like that indefinitely. If parents agree very early on (without coercion), why shouldn't they be allowed to pull the plug? (I found a list of Nazi criteria, such as severe and progressive encephalitis. Unfortunately, standards were lowered as time went on.)
Because it is not the parents life to throw away. Also, you have taken upon yourself to define the perimeters the way you see them. Not everyone would define quality of life issues the same way. You do realize that the type of people you are describing generally don't have a long life because of medical complications so I hope that makes you feel better.
Keep in mind that tests are done on pregnant women looking for Down syndrome in their baby. MANY choose to end the life of that baby based on the presence of DS so don't tell me what people consider "hopeless" or throw away and what they don't. Thus, the issue with deciding to euthanize people with DS. People with DS can have a wide range of mental, physical and emotional issues. I can tell you that the doctor here wanted to know if I had a one of those legal papers saying what life sustaining measures I would want for my son and that some of those say "no heroic efforts", lots of them just dictate "Let him/her die." My son is 29 years old and I have in this for a long time.
Those that don't want to parent their children have adoption as an option to spare them the inconvenience.
We all know it is a slippery slope.
I do not find my tone "completely inappropriate" when you are talking about killing people with disabilities, to include mental, emotional, physical, etc. Killing the homeless? What is inappropriate is the topic especially since this is about the 3rd time this sick thing is being promoted here at C-D.
Get a clue! This isn't going to sell in the US for the foreseeable future, thank God!
Time for myself and my son to have lunch. You know my son, the one that many would think is just taking up space!
Talking about 2 different topics. You are talking about legalizing medically assisted suicide. I absolutely agree with you. Both my mother and father had zero quality of life and we were helpless to do anything about it because in our state it is illegal. State-by-State Guide to Physician-Assisted Suicide - Euthanasia - ProCon.org
The topic the OP presents is essentially murdering the homeless and is totally absurd
Agreed. If people are dying and do not wish to string it out forever, and if they are dealing with pain and no quality in the time remaining, I think they should be able to arrainge it. Doctors should be allowed to assist but not decide. Some in the last times of life do not want to die.
I question those who mentally don't want to live should be given this chance. Many people who commit sucide are in the grips of some bad situation which agrivates the illness. Help the underlying things, give them support (many do not have any) and if when all is said and done still wish to, let them choose. But just because they are 'hopeless' don't presume they always must be.
As for homeless people, panhandlers, people who don't ever seem to succeed, don't care, get in the way, ruin your view of the street because they insist in being there.... there are examples of what happenes when you devalue those who aren't YOU or your clique, or don't have the power you have and how they've been made to 'dissapear'. It's easy to to define what desirable and undesirable when your used to it.
What would society look and feel like if criminals, mentally ill, etc, and those who requested euthanization were treated accordingly?
1) Would society be better off in some ways?
2) How would the families of those euthanized feel? Would they empathize with their loved ones, or could they be taught to understand & accept that the world is safer & improved when it's cleansed of harmful and/or unwell people?
3) Would people begin living in constant, horrific fear of the government taking them and/or a loved one? Would such a law cause people to behave better, or worse?
4) There are homeless people & unemployed drug addicts who seek no improvement and pose a threat to others' safety & health. A thread was posted on City Data a few weeks ago about such people in Seattle, OP was pondering, can't these people just be euthanized?
5) As the law stands now, people in pain who are suffering and wish to die are legally obligated to stay alive. Convicted murderers are given rights and their lives are sustained by tax dollars.
6) As laws stand now, understandably, we are obligated to value the preservation of life at all costs. That is the humane, ethical way to treat all people, no matter what.
7) A valuable lesson we're supposed to learn as humans is to take care of others in need. Not only does it (possibly) help others, but it improves & strengthens our character.
8) An opposing thought: But there are some people who truly wish to die, and there are some people the world would be better without because after all the help we've offered them, they remain problematic & harmful.
Can we ponder & discuss this?
Very bad idea. The most basic question is... who gets to decide what constitutes 'acceptable'.
Number 2 is right out of a few playbooks which have been used and its now called crimes against humanity. And yes, people would live with fear that something they did would become unacceptable and it would become all right for them to be 'culled' from the herd so it would stay perfect.
For 11 days I watched my 91 years young father-in-law die. There really wasn't anything for them to do. He was in what they called "comfort care." He was morphed up and totally oblivious to what was going on.
My sisters watched our 99 1/2 years young grandmother die for about 2 weeks. It was the same thing. She was morphed up, too and was totally oblivious to what was going on.
I think in both cases it would have been more humane to euthanized them. But instead, the inevitable was just prolonged and both of them suffered longer than they should have, not to mention our family had to watch them suffer. We do it with our animals but we can't do it with our loved ones.
That being said, to just euthanize people because they are a "burden on society," "undesirable," or "hopeless," it has been done before. It was called Nazi Germany. Who gets to chose which people "get the needle?" And we do have a form of it in this country. It is called The Death Penalty.
Talking about 2 different topics. You are talking about legalizing medically assisted suicide. I absolutely agree with you. Both my mother and father had zero quality of life and we were helpless to do anything about it because in our state it is illegal. State-by-State Guide to Physician-Assisted Suicide - Euthanasia - ProCon.org
The topic the OP presents is essentially murdering the homeless and is totally absurd
Exactly. Who's to decide who's a "criminal" deserving to die? Ever hear of the Innocence Project? Innocence_Project The same for the mentally ill and the mentally retarded. What's next? People who are of the "wrong" race? The "wrong" economic status?
Phewwwwwwwww....need to check my eyes...thought the title was "Legalizing the euthanization of homeless people."
No, it is "Legalizing the euthanization of hopeless people?" As you can see, the debate took on a life of its own bringing in a variety of individuals whom some deem as "hopeless". That alone demonstrates what a slippery slope it is. I think, if I remember right, it was focused on the homeless in the beginning in a way but it seemed to also have an emphasis on mental illness and then we started speaking of the severely disabled. Lay low, you may be in the next group discussed.
Frankly, the tone of that post is completely inappropriate and obstructs real discussion.
Even Nazi Germany didn't try hard to euthanize people with Down's Syndrome. If people wanted to raise kids like that, they could. Cases where caring for kids is extremely difficult medically is what we're talking about, as in stays in bed all day attached to a machine and unable to communicate. That's not much of a life and most adults would not want to be kept going on like that indefinitely. If parents agree very early on (without coercion), why shouldn't they be allowed to pull the plug? (I found a list of Nazi criteria, such as severe and progressive encephalitis. Unfortunately, standards were lowered as time went on.)
Perhaps your not aware that the FIRST groups they experimented on were the mentally ill or deprived. They were testing ways to kill masses of people. They did makeshift carbon monixide traps and locked their victus inside, in this case anyone mentally 'wrong'. It worked so they knew it would work on a larger scale. Those with Down's syndrome were not considered 'proper' because they looked different and were 'slow'. The Nazi's wanted to rid Germany of all the imperfect. Those parents who chose to raise their imperfect child later might share the fate for not being good obedient Germans too.
Those standards were lowered because it was intended they be all along. Every German was subject to this test. Women with conditions which might be passed on, with or without evidence, or had something else 'undesirable' about them were forced sterilized too. But it crept slowly so it was something which could be enforced. If they'd announced all the reasons why you might end up dead or sterilized at the start, you think Hitler and his lieutenants would have been so popular? The appeal was that the bad things happen to 'them' but as good Germans they were the chosen people. Except some of them were not entirely good enough. Baby steps until it was too late to turn back.
I don't think if you lose the child lottery you have the right to just have your imperfect infant 'euthanized'. People used to put them in state 'hospitals' where they became invisible. A society which won't care for its most in need is one which is morally bankrupt.
I initially misread "hopeless" as "homeless". I thought to myself "Finally, a thread I can get behind and support".
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.
