Should we allow euthanasia?

EricJonrosh

show previous quotes

Euthanasia is a political slippery slope. Countries that have legalized it have seen cases increase 5 fold, including state sponsored killings of healthy people. It can become a tool for rogue governments (see Hitler's Action T4). Some think Hitler's "Master Race" doctrine was welcomed because eugenics was so popular in that day. Oregon has refused funding for chemo while paying for assisted suicide in at least one case, making life or death a state decision.

If a federal law is passed, radical eugenics groups will waste no time foisting their agendas on its back, calling for euthanasia of the disabled, certain ethnic groups, whoever they deem unfit or unhealthy. Then who will determine the subjective meaning of "quality of life?" Will you always trust your government once a law is in place? Imagine a world where gays are euthanized, or certain ethnic groups deemed inferior, or people with wrong political views. In 1939 Margaret Sanger created the "Negro Project" to exterminate blacks in America. In 2013, a DHS employee called for genocide of "white people."

If you truly want euthanasia to be legal, it can be done at great cost. But will we always trust the stewards of that law?

Very one sides positioning of the situation.
You are confusing voluntary euthanasia with involuntary euthanasia.

brb, going to see the stats for mass involuntary euthanasias in Oregon and Montana. What? None? You don't say....

That's the slippery slope. Every government that practices eugenics went through a door called humane euthanasia to get there. I don't trust the government with that power. And in Oregon, as I stated, there is at least one case of the state denying funds for chemo but paying for assisted suicide. I don't trust government with those decisions, seeing how they run everything else into the ground.

Did they deny payment of that patient's chemo or did they deny that patient's chemo?

http://www.katu.com/news/26119539.html

The_Aly_Wei

show previous quotes

Euthanasia is a political slippery slope. Countries that have legalized it have seen cases increase 5 fold, including state sponsored killings of healthy people. It can become a tool for rogue governments (see Hitler's Action T4). Some think Hitler's "Master Race" doctrine was welcomed because eugenics was so popular in that day. Oregon has refused funding for chemo while paying for assisted suicide in at least one case, making life or death a state decision.

If a federal law is passed, radical eugenics groups will waste no time foisting their agendas on its back, calling for euthanasia of the disabled, certain ethnic groups, whoever they deem unfit or unhealthy. Then who will determine the subjective meaning of "quality of life?" Will you always trust your government once a law is in place? Imagine a world where gays are euthanized, or certain ethnic groups deemed inferior, or people with wrong political views. In 1939 Margaret Sanger created the "Negro Project" to exterminate blacks in America. In 2013, a DHS employee called for genocide of "white people."

If you truly want euthanasia to be legal, it can be done at great cost. But will we always trust the stewards of that law?

Very one sides positioning of the situation.
You are confusing voluntary euthanasia with involuntary euthanasia.

brb, going to see the stats for mass involuntary euthanasias in Oregon and Montana. What? None? You don't say....

That's the slippery slope. Every government that practices eugenics went through a door called humane euthanasia to get there. I don't trust the government with that power. And in Oregon, as I stated, there is at least one case of the state denying funds for chemo but paying for assisted suicide. I don't trust government with those decisions, seeing how they run everything else into the ground.

Did they deny payment of that patient's chemo or did they deny that patient's chemo?

http://www.katu.com/news/26119539.html

Honestly, i dont blame them. I think that paying to prolong life in such a manner is useless. It is making large pharma the industry as well as the GOVERNMENTAL interest that it is at this point. But, that is just my opinion.

Also, i think that saying a governing system is not trusted with these decisions is legitimate...but in saying that, i also would not seek their funding.

helenarriaza

show previous quotes

I really don't understand our fascination with keeping people alive as long as we possibly can. We are extremely selfish and ignorant to be completely honest. A human should have the right and priveledge of ending their life if they choose. They should be able to go to a medical facility and have it ended on their own terms. We hand out abortions like candy but want to hang onto a vegetable, laying in a bed dying in pain. Doesn't make sense.


*edit* Oh wait it makes perfect sense. The longer we stay alive the more money the pharmecuetical companies make.

Because church.

(at least in my country)

We have church in America too but i'm not sure i get your point.

At least where I am, your thoughts, needs and achievements depend on someone else. The go to is church.

I've seen battered wives, molested children and terminal patients having to put up with it because some guy comes and says that is because they wanted them to pay for their sins.

My brother works at a hospital where a 2 year old was burned head to toe because the mother threw a burning log into the crib until a neighbor came and rescued him. They were going to send him to a foster family or institution that could help and they gave him back to his mother "because XXX says that a child belongs to his mother".

My grandma was dragged month after month, every time being less and less of the woman that cared for me and more of a corpse, it angered me when the priest said that it was XXX's way of proving his love to her and to remain in pain because it was good.

Olivia

Dear Posters,

I wanted to provide a brief explanation for locking this topic. The original poster has received a significant amount of feedback and the conversation can continue in a group or private message.

15. Divisive Topics Are Better Suited For Groups, Not the Main Forums
Divisive topics, particularly those that seek input from or are relevant only to a select group of users, are better placed within an appropriate Group rather than the Main Forums. For example, topics relevant to only one religion should not be placed on the main forums but rather within a group related to that religion. We reserve the right to move any topic to a relevant public Group which interested members may join if they wish to continue to participate.

Thank you for your understanding and help in keeping MFP a supportive, friendly community.

Respectfully,
Olivia
MFP Community Manager