Should we allow euthanasia?
Replies
-
I have a question on this one: What happens with your life insurance policy if you die by euthanasia? In britain, a life insurance policy becomes void if you commit suicide (euthanasia is not legal here). Would there be a special Claus put in place for that in those states where it is legal?
At least in Oregon, use of the Death with Dignity law cannot interfere with your health or life insurance. It still gets paid.0 -
I have a question on this one: What happens with your life insurance policy if you die by euthanasia? In britain, a life insurance policy becomes void if you commit suicide (euthanasia is not legal here). Would there be a special Claus put in place for that in those states where it is legal?
At least in Oregon, use of the Death with Dignity law cannot interfere with your health or life insurance. It still gets paid.
In most of the U.S., if you commit suicide following the 2 year exclusion period, then it pays out.0 -
YES, absolutely!0
-
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....0 -
yes.0
-
I strongly agree. A person that is suffering like your friend should have the right to die without being criminal. In Germany it´s also forbitten, but the Netherlands do allow it! My dad died on cancer. After the diagnose we made sure that he could go to a clinic in the Netherlands if it was needed!0
-
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?
Out of all political things in today's America that resemble the Third Reich you are worried about euthanasia?
The T4 operation gave the doctors the ability to euthanize after THEY deemed a patient incurable (the VAST majority of those patients were in psychiatric hospitals) not as a request per the patient and or the guardian of the patient.
That is utter apples and oranges.0 -
Yes.0
-
Absolutely.
ETA: The one thing that absolutely every human being should have is the sovereignty of their own body. If they choose to no longer live, they should be allowed that choice, because no other person has the right to tell them they have to live.
Agree with this, and I would absolutely want the right to decide. But I do understand not allowing health care practitioners to actually administer the treatment. I work in medical malpractice insurance. The inherent liability issues in PAS are huge, even when all the physician can do is write a prescription for barbiturates and leave it in the hands of the patient. Doctors get accused all the time by grieving families and ambulance-chasing lawyers of pushing PAS to hide malpractice. If physicians were actually allowed to administer the treatment themselves, the liability increases exponentially, to say nothing of the unintended political consequences. Assume a state or federal government rules that PAS is included in the right to sovereignty over one's body. Can the government compel an unwilling doctor to participate? We are already seeing this issue with abortion. Food for thought.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Yes, yes, and yes. Demonstrate it on Congress, too.0
-
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?0 -
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)0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.0
-
Yes. Definitely.0
-
You're killing me...
I may be in the minority but I am, respectfully, against it.0 -
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?0
-
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.0 -
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.htm0 -
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.0
-
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 is0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
Definitely and prayers for your friend.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions