Assisted Suicide

First off, arguing over the semantics of the word is useless. It is what it is, and it was explained in the first post. Second, relying on what congress says and the terms it uses isn't always the best idea. They've been wrong before. Anyway, third and final, the actual topic.

In regards to the vegetable state, most people have living wills. My whole family has one. Basically, it states that if any of us are on machines to live in a vegetable state with little or no chance of recovery, our plugs are pulled. It is a hard decision to make (I made one alongside my father when my grandfather had a stroke), but it has to be made. Pulling plugs isn't murder. If it were murder, living wills would have no merit in court.
 
....

Anyway, I personally find nothing with AS - as long as this is something both you and the assister have come to an agreement on, why should any interference stop you?
 
Indeed, pack it in arguing over the correct term. Call it whatever you like, but people are spamming the place up with arguements over who is right and wrong. After this post, get back on topic please. Otherwise infractions and warnings are being given out.
 
Euthanasia, assisted suicide...whatever you want to call it, I'm generally for it. Proponents call it "death with dignity." And I agree.

Many people who are dying do not want to die in pain, with tubes in their body, surrounded by doctors. What kind of death is that? They have no control over their death, and they're pointlessly fighting something that is eventually going to win. For some reason, ours is a very death-phobic culture. Although death is a very natural part of life, we've developed a fear of it, and do all within our power to postpone or ignore it.

The fact of that matter is, if someone is going to die from a terminal illness or is in a coma with no hope of recovering due to massive brain injury (like Terry Schiavo), it's unnatural to try to keep them alive. It just shows how we, as a culture, really can't let go. Yes, it's extremely sad. But the person is going to die. If that person wants to have control over their death and die in peace instead of going through painful treatments that are oftentimes worse than the diease itself (ie: chemotherapy), then by all means, let them. It is their life, and they have a right to end it. I imagine it's very difficult for the family members. I know that if it were one of my family members, I'd try to dissuade them. I have trouble letting go. But, when it comes down to it, it's that person's choice, and if that choice makes them happy, I will respect that.
 
I was just reading through this thread and thought of something...

When the Bible was written, we did not have the same medical care we do today. If a person had developed cancer or heart disease, they would have probably died far more quickly than someone with the same illness would today. Some religious parties argue against ethenasia because it's 'playing God.' They argue that 'only God should choose when to end life.'

Well, if God were to exist, surely a terminal illness would be a sign that God had decided their time was up. Preventing death is just as manipulative as pulling the plug.

Re-reading that, it sounds a little heartless. >_< I'm not heartless over this issue at all. I believe that someone in pain shouldn't have to suffer, but I understand that actively ending someone's life can be an incredibly traumatic experience. I can understand why someone would argue against it - we don't want to lose our loved ones; we fear that doctors will abuse the power if it becomes fully legal; we want each and every person to be treated with repsect and given a full chance.

However, expanding on that final point brings me to the issue of, not death with dignity, but death without suffering. I'd hate to live my final years (and it can be years for some) in pain, always waiting for things to end. I'd hate to see my friends and family live through the trauma with me, always watching, waiting, and helping me... Waiting years for death is more painful. Watching a loved one live in pain for years, without any hope of another good day, is more traumatic. I don't think religious parties have a right to tell those who have to experience this pain and trauma how to deal with it. I do think that the person who's ill should be the one to make the decision, and that there should be regulations which ensure they have thought carefully, but I don't believe it should be viewed with such negativity. :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top