Should Euthanasia be legalised?

[Silverspeed]

Euthanasia is assisted suicide. There are two main types:

Active Euthanasia: This means taking something out that is keeping them alive (eg feeding tube).

Passive Euthanasia: This means turning off something that is keeping them alive (eg a live support machine).

 

Should it be legalised?

Leave your views.

[gcol]

In an ideal world, we should all have the right to chose the time and possibly method of our own demise. It is as much an individual right as any other conferred under the guise of human rights and democratic choice.

 

In the real world, it would be open to so much abuse by criminals and the generally unscrupulous as to be unworkable.

 

It would create another legal gravytrain and place an excessive burden on the already beleagured forces of law and order.

 

All just in my opinion, of course.

[ParanoiA]

No one has any moral authority over your life, in my opinion. It is an insult to presume otherwise. Suicide of any variety, for any reason should not be illegal.

[ydoaPs]

What about Voluntary Euthanasia vs Involuntary? Surely theres more than just two kinds of Euthanasia.

[Dak]

No one has any moral authority over your life, in my opinion. It is an insult to presume otherwise. Suicide of any variety, for any reason should not be illegal.

 

What about if someone's clinically insane?

 

Or if they've just split up with their wife? and are drunk?

 

I'm generally in agreement with you, but i don't think it's as simple as 'any variety, any reason should not be illegal' (not sure you weren't just being succinct tho).

[ParanoiA]

What about if someone's clinically insane?

 

Or if they've just split up with their wife? and are drunk?

 

I'm generally in agreement with you' date=' but i don't think it's as simple as 'any variety, any reason should not be illegal' (not sure you weren't just being succinct tho).[/quote']

 

Why does it have to be illegal in order to step in and help? It's not illegal for folks over 21 to drink, yet that doesn't stop family and friends from aggressive intervention in the case of an alcohol problem. Why can't you stop someone from killing themselves without the law telling them they're not allowed to?

 

And the clinically insane have already lost a multitude of rights due to their incapacity to make rational decisions - I'm assuming that's at least part of the criteria for such labels, but I could be wrong - so I'm not sure I would see this any different.

[iNow]

What about if someone's clinically insane?

 

Or if they've just split up with their wife? and are drunk?

Two words for this: Natural Selection.

[Dak]

Why can't you stop someone from killing themselves without the law telling them they're not allowed to?

 

I think the point of making suicide illegal is to give you grounds to incarcerate someone for their own protection when they're suicidal, which is downright creepy imo unless they're not of sound mind.

 

but tbh i was thinking more along the lines of not helping someone kill themselves, and the law telling people that they have to not help people kill themselves (at least under certain circumstances). tbh i'd be happy if most people weren't allowed to assist with suicide, it being the reserve of, say, specially trained doctors (both to examine the possibility of some non-fatal options, and to make it as painless as possible if the person still descides to go through with it).

[ParanoiA]

I think the point of making suicide illegal is to give you grounds to incarcerate someone for their own protection when they're suicidal, which is downright creepy imo unless[/i'] they're not of sound mind.

 

So are you advocating incarceration "for their own protection" or what? If I'm reading this right, I would agree on both points. It's creepy to strip someone's rights based on such obvious subjectivity. Of course, "sound mind" creates a sticky subjective mess as well really.

 

but tbh i was thinking more along the lines of not helping someone kill themselves, and the law telling people that they have to not help people kill themselves (at least under certain circumstances). tbh i'd be happy if most people weren't allowed to assist with suicide, it being the reserve of, say, specially trained doctors (both to examine the possibility of some non-fatal options, and to make it as painless as possible if the person still descides to go through with it).

 

Yeah, in principle, I'm with you. Assisted suicide has the potential for creepiest of all here. Honestly, I trust doctor discretion, for the most part. Although I realize that's somewhat hypocritical on my part. Going to have to chew on this one awhile. Haven't thoroughly thought through the implications of assisted suicide enough.

[Dak]

So are you advocating incarceration "for their own protection" or what? If I'm reading this right, I would agree on both points. It's creepy to strip someone's rights based on such obvious subjectivity. Of course, "sound mind" creates a sticky subjective mess as well really.

 

yes, i'd advocate it if they're temporarily not of sound mind (drunk, short-term depressed/shocked etc). what i find creepy is the possibility that someone could be so unhappy that they want to die, but well-meaning people incarcerate them 'for their own good', thus trapping them in their life (and no doubt making it even worse in the process... brr!)

 

the long-term insane are a bit tricky imo... i'm not sure where i'd stand on voluntry euthanasia for them. i guess i'd be inclined to grant them euthanasia if they persistantly requested it, tho if you can't be sure that they realise the repercussions of it you'd have pretty much no choice but to either deny it (which is potentially very harsh) or choose for them (which is a can of worms)

[lovejunkie02]

i think people should value quality of life, not just life itself. would that solve the whole problem? i don't understand why there's a big to do about it anyway. i mean, i understand that there is one, i just don't know why. if someone wants to take their life, do they really consider the legal ramifications anyway?

though really, i consider suicide and euthanasia two different things. i think of (whether there is actually a distinction or not) euthanasia as assisted suicide. i suppose there is the potential of a slippery slope there but i feel like there should be some option for people who are suffering and want to die.

[DrDNA]

As mentioned above, a major problem is the slippery slope.

 

Once you start, where do you draw the lines?

When is it justified and when is it not?

 

Until these are sufficiently answered, and I doubt they ever will be, I remain against it.

And, unfortunately, a mistake here can not be corrected.

[iNow]

And, unfortunately, a mistake here can not be corrected.

This hasn't stopped our pursual of capital punishment.

 

 

God bless Texas.

[DrDNA]

This hasn't stopped our pursual of capital punishment.

 

 

God bless Texas.

 

Yep. Many mistakes are correctable but death is permanent (at least in the normal sense) .

More than one person has been convicted by an imperfect jury of their "peers", sentenced by an imperfect judge, and put to death by an imperfect system for a crime he/she did not commit.

But just one should be more than enough to prove that it is a bad idea.

[iNow]

The issue here, though, is assisted suicide, and if it should be legal to help someone take their own life in a humane manner, as opposed to forcing them to find another way like swallowing pills or sitting in a bathtub and dropping in a toaster.

 

This whole issue reaks of religious undertones and an attempt to legislate someone elses morality to more closely align with your own.

[DrDNA]

I think part of the problem here is, it is too easy with today's technology to distance our selves from reality, the act of killing a human being. Sort of like the people that love eating their meat but critisize hunters because killing is barbaric or the fact it is easier to push a button and kill thousands because we don't see their eyes.

How about we make it legal so long as the person doing the assisting has to get dirty during the act. For example, they can only "help" by hacking the person to death with a dull hatchet or suffocating them with a clear dry cleaning bag while staring into their eyes..... That should make it more real and interesting for all the assisted suicide advocates.

[iNow]

I think part of the problem here is, it is too easy with today's technology to distance our selves from reality, the act of killing a human being. Sort of like the people that love eating their meat but critisize hunters because killing is barbaric or the fact it is easier to push a button and kill thousands because we don't see their eyes.

How about we make it legal so long as the person doing the assisting has to get dirty during the act. For example, they can only "help" by hacking the person to death with a dull hatchet or suffocating them with a clear dry cleaning bag while staring into their eyes..... That should make it more real and interesting for all the assisted suicide advocates.

 

You presume the issue is not already "real" for those who advocate the legality of assisted suicide, and there, my friend, you presume too much.

[DrDNA]

You presume the issue is not already "real" for those who advocate the legality of assisted suicide, and there, my friend, you presume too much.

 

No. I'm pretty that I have presumed the correct amount.

[iNow]

No. I'm pretty that I have presumed the correct amount.

 

Well, I could have just said you were incorrectly attacking the stance of those who support assisted suicide with your fallacied logic, but I was trying to be nice.

[DrDNA]

I'm not attacking anyone's stance. I am stating my stance. I'm pretty sure that I am entitled to do that, or am I only entitled to state my stance if I just so happen to agree?

 

And what the heck is wrong with the logic? I merely accept that people find it easier to condone many unpleasantries when they can displace themselves from the act.

 

I believe that this is often true in the preparation of our food, the killing of our "enemies, enacting the punishment of our worst criminals, eleminating unwanted pregnancies, and ending the lives of the sick and/or disabled.

[iNow]

Well, you first said:

 

How about we make it legal so long as the person doing the assisting has to get dirty during the act. For example, they can only "help" by hacking the person to death with a dull hatchet or suffocating them with a clear dry cleaning bag while staring into their eyes..... That should make it more real and interesting for all the assisted suicide advocates.

 

... and then said:

 

I merely accept that people find it easier to condone many unpleasantries when they can displace themselves from the act.

 

I believe that this is often true in the preparation of our food, the killing of our "enemies, enacting the punishment of our worst criminals, eleminating unwanted pregnancies, and ending the lives of the sick and/or disabled.

 

When I challenged you, your stance became noticably softer. That's all.

[DrDNA]

I was simply attempting to clarify for you. That is all.

 

Only my wife and my son have emotional control over me.

When my computer gets too complicated I pull the plug to end its pain and put it out of its misery.

[Glider]

I'm for it. I believe in the right of the individual to choose the time and mode of their own death, but I'm talking from a clinical standpoint, which means I'm referring to patients in severe and intractable pain from terminal conditions and not advocating people throwing themselves under trains because they're depressed (depression is treatable).

 

The forms of euthanasia listed in the OP (passive Vs active) are not quite accurate. The levels are passive, non-agressive and aggressive. Passive euthanasia is already quite common. This involves the withdholding of medication or treatment as in DNR orders (DNR = Do Not Resuscitate), or the necessary administration of narcotic analgesia at levels that, although required to control the pain, will kill the patient (in this case, death is the by product of the necessary analgesia, not the objective).

 

Non-agressive euthanasia refers to the withdrawal of life suppot mechanisms (ventilators, dialysis etc.) and agressive euthenasia refers to the application of a substance (usually an anaesthetic) where the objective is death.

 

In all cases, it should be borne in mind that the term euthenasia means 'good death', i.e. a dignified and pain free death by personal choice rather than being forced to linger on in protracted and intractable suffering because it is against the principles of those treating them to allow (or help) them to die.

[DrDNA]

Isn't the desire or willingness to end one's own life itself a clinically relevant indicator of an underlying beharioural and/or organic brain disorder?

[Glider]

Not really. That would make the entire euthanasia discussion a catch 22: If you express a wish to end your life, you're clearly not sufficiently competent to make the choice simply by virtue of having made the choice.

 

This is quite a common argument against the right of a patient to choose to die, but the problem is, it's expressed as an abstract logical argument, completely free of context and situation (i.e. as if preceded by 'all other things being equal').

 

Under those circumstances it has validity (at least, face validity) and runs thus; in a healthy person about whose future it would be unreasonable to predict a significant deviation from their current state, the expression of a wish to die can be seen as unreasonable and thus indicative of an abnormal psychological state.

 

However, expressions of a wish to die rarely come from healthy people and when you add context, things change. In a person who through some pathology is experiencing severe intractable pain and suffering and whose prognosis is more suffering, the loss of their faculties, their dignitiy and humanity and eventual death, the expression of a wish to die in order to avoid that process is quite reasonable.

 

There are things worse than death and I think the expression of a wish to avoid them by choosing to die a little earlier suggests a normal, reasoned response to an unusual situation.

 

I think the biggest problem comes from people who simply cannot imagine themselves ever choosing to die. This, by extension suggest thay cannot imagine themselves in that situation (i.e. they lack empathy), which, I would suggest, disqualifies them from making decisions on behalf of the individual who is in that situation.