Should we allow euthanasia?

The_Aly_Wei

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.

Agree. Agree. Agree.

EddieHaskell97

Yes, yes, and yes. Demonstrate it on Congress, too.

helenarriaza

Yes.

My grandma died may 10th and had a 6 month battle with cancer, her stomach removed, her legs broken from having brittle bones (for all the meds) and from being 180 pounds she weighed about 75, hair falling out, she could not recognize you and she was in pain all the time.

Her nerves were wrecked so no matter the drug or how much, it was not doing anything. Her skin was starting to blacken and smell awful and she could not move and barely breathe.

She had organ failure after 3 days where her blood pressure started a rollercoaster and her veins were so thin she could not be given anything, she did not eat and the only "sustenance" she had was saline solution, which her body rejected.

So, yes.

We get a chance to end the misery of our pets in a human way, why not us?

helenarriaza

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)

fbmandy55

Yes. I feel like this choice is a basic human right. If someone does not want to live, why should a law force them to?

My aunt passed last year from cancer. She was in her mid 50's and I know her last days were horrific. Her body was covered in tumors and the pain was intolerable.

A couple years ago, there was an attempted murder/suicide in a nursing home by my office. The wife had horrible dementia, the husband was ill and he could not stand to see his wife in the condition she was in.. Now as for making that decision of the wife, eh. Not sure I am ok with that. But if he wanted to end it for himself, let him go in happiness, rather than the end of his life spent mourning his wife's condition.

seltzermint555

Yes. I strongly support euthanasia. I felt this way for years but it greatly intensified when I watched my mother-in-law suffer through end stage cancer and paralysis - she was on hospice for 10 months last year before her passing, and the last few months there was no quality of life.

Tatonka_usn

I'm a firm believer that "dying with dignity" should be available to anyone with a terminal disease (who requests it). I lost my father to cancer at the age of 44 (I was 14 at the time), and watch him suffer for 5 years before it finally got the best of him. While I have deeply admired his courage in fighting this insidious predator, there are many times (as I child) I wished he would have saved himself the prolonged pain which wracked his body. There's a fine line, but to set blanket policies which deny humans the ability to chose their own fate....at least in these type of circumstances....is unconscionable. My wife is a Vet Technician, and often alludes to what many of you have already posted......we treat our pets more humanely than we do ourselves.

Rage_Phish

Yes. Definitely.

Go_Mizzou99

You're killing me...

I may be in the minority but I am, respectfully, against it.

DBoone85

Where is the line. How do we determine when it becomes OK to go ahead and let someone pull the plug, or end their own life in some other way? When life just seems hopeless...when is that real? Not putting this up as an argument, but simply a question?

TheRoadDog

I'm sure sooner than later this will end up being on a bill. I currently have a good friend who's terminal with a rare cancer. She's down to 80lbs, and in hospice. Every 15 minutes she has to hit a pain button to release morphine to tolerate pain. She wants to die with dignity, but doesn't want to break the law to do it.
The cost of care is tolling on the family and she does have a small charity trying to help them out. But she's been in hospice for over 5 weeks now and she wants to let go, but somehow is still surviving.
So should euthanasia be allowed in circumstances like this?

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I think it should be, but...I really don't wish that decision on anyone.

My brother died 20 years ago. AIDS. It took a long time and took a huge toll on him and my family. He was young. In the last 8 weeks of his life he lost almost half his body weight. The last couple of weeks he was pretty much out of it because of the morphine. Thos last couple weeks he couldn't get out of bed. Every night, I would drive over to my Parent's house and my sister and I would give him a towel bath. I would lift him out of bed and hold him while my sister cleaned him up.

I really did not look forward to that each day, but, now that he is gone, I realize that I would do it every night to have him back.

So sorry, Brother.

dayone987

From what I've read about the Netherlands, it does seem that "involuntary" euthanasia (patients have not given explicit consent) is an issue despite a fairly tight legal basis for euthanasia.

http://graphics.tudelft.nl/~rafa/pl/jochemsen.htm

sfbaumgarten

Yes and I'm pleasantly surprised by how many people here are in favor of it. Thought this thread would look much worse by now.

sc003ro

the problem is it is not a yhes or no answer....if allowed it opens a huge can of other worms....who can do it who can;t ...who pays for it....etc etc etc

like everything the abuse will follow it as well...which is where the slippery slope comes into play

there is an answer but I do not know what it is

headofphat

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.

headofphat

Where is the line. How do we determine when it becomes OK to go ahead and let someone pull the plug, or end their own life in some other way? When life just seems hopeless...when is that real? Not putting this up as an argument, but simply a question?

I'll answer yours with another question. Who are we to tell a human who is in pain or suffering whether perceived or real that they have to stick around and suffer through it? Who are we to make that decision? What is our reason for wanting a person who clearly doesn't want to live anymore have to stay alive and suffer through whatever it is they are suffering through? We want to play God in that situation but when a mother wants an abortion to terminate the life of a child, we tell her to get in line, we'll be with you in a jiffy.

EricJonrosh

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.

bookworm_847

Definitely. There should be safeguards in place to make sure the person is competent to make that decision and it isn't just the pain talking, but I believe it should be allowed.

I'm sorry for your friend.

The_Aly_Wei

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?

skippygirlsmom

Definitely and prayers for your friend.