Euthanasia: Abortion's older sister?

What of it? Do you think it's more acceptable than abortion and if so why?

Are people allowed to die if they so wish and if they can't do it themselves?

Must they suffer for months, for years all for the sake of "the sanctity of life"?

What do you think?

If people want to kill themselves, so be it. But killing someone else is murder.

Difficult. A few years ago I would have said definitely yes to euthanasia. That if someone is suffering so terribly and that the quality of life is so low that living isn't even worth living any more and that they wish to die then they should have that right. That if I put myself in a situation where maybe I lose the ability to live independently or that if I were terminally ill that I would wish to be able to end it on my terms. I say I still side in favour of consent-based euthanasia but I think I wouldn't be able to argue for it from such a firm position as I used to. Similar to how I used to be aggressively pro-choice in regards to abortion but since getting older I am no longer as firm on that position either. I think as of now I advocate choice as a value.

I suppose the question is how would we go about practising euthanasia.

Agreed.

edited 4th Sep '11 12:31:50 PM by PiccoloNo92

Ethically, this one would say that it should be allowed.

But there are way too many possible ways for abuse in it's practical implementation.

If euthanasia is allowed so must abortion, but it is considered murder just as abortion is.

/leavesbefore400pagecircularargumentforms

Consent-based euthanasia, get the best experts available to determine the person is of sound mind first.

@ Rott and MT: What's a worse crime, murder or torture?

Well so long as we just stick to putting down our personal views this hopefully won't escalate into anything like that Tom

edited 4th Sep '11 12:50:24 PM by PiccoloNo92

Just as abortion is?

That would depend on the jurisdiction. It is explicitly legal in many places, under certain regulations. Much like abortion.

But here's the kicker...you cannot remove all possibility of a person being able to kill themselves without considerably more effort than is probably worthwhile. I've known of a few older persons who just decided to wait around in bed till they died.

Suicide? Your life is your own. Euthanasia? No. If you're incapable of doing it yourself, I don't think you should be allowed to draft others to help. Furthermore, doctors are to "do no harm," and causing death is damn well harm...

Is it really harm when the only other option is dying painfully with no hope of recovery though?

If they'd like to be put under and die in their sleep, I have no problem with that. I have a problem with simply having people help to kill them, though. Not acceptable.

What's the difference? Is removing a feeding tube letting someone die or killing them? Overdosing them on Nitrous Oxide? If a person wants to die, but is unable to do it themself, and someone is willing to help them shuffle off that mortal coil, why is it acceptable to put them to sleep and wake up dead, but not, say, give lethal injection 1

edited 4th Sep '11 1:52:33 PM by Wulf

Because there's a very clear line between "I want to be asleep when I die," and "I want you to kill me."

The only fuzzy area I will acknowledge is people in a coma. I don't have a blanket opinion, in those cases, though I would say that the patient's pre-made wishes trump everything else—which is a case for everybody having a living will at 18...

So we should just let people suffer in massive agony then?

I dont think euthanasia is murder and neither is abortion.

Only when someone actually says either of those. When it's simply "I want to die now." I see no difference. It's only unfair to the person performing the euthanasia if they're uncomfortable with doing it, and if they are, they shouldn't be forced to. And, while there's a difference between "I want to be asleep when I die" and "I want you to kill me", there's not a difference between putting someone to sleep and making sure they never wake up and injecting someone with something and making sure they die. Either way, you are killing them.

I sense a strawman in the Force.

Just because I don't think doctors should be allowed to kill people doesn't mean I'm against pain medication.

Good for you. I think they are. Your point is?

Lol, wut?

If you put them under, they're still going to die from whatever it is that's ailing them. They just (hopefully) won't feel it. You've done nothing wrong. Conversely, actively causing them to die is killing them... by definition, actually.

edited 4th Sep '11 2:08:50 PM by USAF713

What even if all they do is set up the devices and the person who wants to die has to push a button? As long as the choice is the individuals I am fine with it. I do not see this being even the same thing as abortion. One it is usually an adult choosing to die in the first place. This is also someone who has already lived.

As for abortion I don't care either way.

Forgot to address this. I like to call it the "Tobacco/Marijuana" argument. I.e. because one bad thing is legal doesn't mean another bad thing should be legal too. Ignoring completely the ethics of legalizing drugs, the idea that because we let people do one thing that's bad means we should let them do some other bad thing, too, is absurd and, if anything, a reversal of logic.

That's not "assisted suicide", then. That's simply giving them the option.

If I give you a gun with one bullet, it's still your choice as to what you do with it. If I shoot you, then I am completely responsible for that death and should be imprisoned (and, insofar as I care on a moral plane, executed). Of course, this is ignoring the idea of emotional distress, but...

USAF, there is a point where pain medication wont work. Also I am talking from personal experience, my auntie was declared brain dead but they hooked up her to a life support machine for 6 days. I thought this was wrong.

edited 4th Sep '11 2:14:49 PM by whaleofyournightmare

And that is why I think we should make living wills mandatory at 18, whale. Either way, point is, when someone has gone under, they aren't going to feel anything. Anesthetic is a level above your average morphine. At the same time, the doctors are not responsible for the death, whatever they had is. I fail to see why this is such an atrocious idea...

I think that that it's less controversial because you can more make sure that the person involved is making a (reasonably) informed choice, whereas with abortion the "child" is an unknown factor.

Personally I am in favour of it, and if I ended up with dementia I would certainly prefer death to being a vast drain on everyone elses time, patience and nerves.

One of the biggest reasons I oppose this, besides the obvious moral and principle objections, is that it desensitizes doctors. There are far too many cases from Oregon (the ones who've legalized this crap) of them euthanizing people against their wishes/without consultations. Considering that there's something that is effectively the same that lacks most of the moral objections and won't cause this, I find that to be utterly unacceptable...

If it were restricted to people of sound mind who were capable of going through a psychiatrist or two first, I suppose that would at least stop a good chunk of the abuse, but we can't be abridging people's right to die like that, can we?

edited 4th Sep '11 2:27:37 PM by USAF713

That doesn't seem to be the case at places like Dignitas (which is what I think of when it comes to assisted dying) in Switzerland.

And if its just the machines keeping someone alive? Well in that case leave it up to the family as we can't decide and the person may have expressed a wish (but not put it in writing) to live or die.

edited 4th Sep '11 2:32:40 PM by JosefBugman

Well, the American healthcare system is kind of shit compared to the rest of the First World, so I'm surprised that you're surprised.

Besides, I heard the same thing is happening in the Netherlands... I think, I'll have to dig up that article at school again... so, yeah.

Doctors are to do no harm. Killing is harm. Conversely, anesthetic is not, and achieves the same functional outcome (an end to pain). Therefore, I do not accept euthanasia as legitimate.

-shrug- Then don't have them swear the hypocratic oath but train them in medicine anyway. Besides which doctors don't do it at dignitas (if I remember correctly) you are simply given a drug to take and are asked (twice) if you want to go through with this. Oft times people say "no" and go away because they know they have the option of dying on their own terms should they want to.

And if anesthetic doesn't work? Or costs more? Or if the person actually made a choice to do so?

edited 4th Sep '11 2:44:04 PM by JosefBugman