Doing a little survey for school: Should Euthanasia be legal?

[Puppet]

Everyone please voice your opinion. I support it, but more importanly what do you think. or

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Code Brown]

Everyone please voice your opinion. I support it, but more importanly what do you think. or

Not that it matters for this poll, but in the future, make sure that you check off the box that says that answers stay private. You'll get a better response and fewer upset people as well.

 

[typeB-md]

hands down the answer is yes. someone give me one good reason why a grown adult in a reasonable mental status cannot choose to terminate him/herself life to end pain or suffering.

people who say no are the biggest *****s in the world. how can you tell a person they can't make their own decision about their life?

 

[RJSpaulding]

I supported it before I did a group research project in my English class, but now I am not really sure. I feel that a deteriorating patient's physical and emotional suffering should be alleviated, but when is it the best interest of the physician to euthanize someone when they should be more concerned with preserving life, even if there seems to be no hope. So I am torn, but have fun with this "battle of morals" project.

 

[superdevil]

people who say no are the biggest *****s in the world.

i'd love to watch you in action on some sort of ethics debate team. i think i'd even pay for it.

 

[melimi]

i'm undecided
even tho i'm pro suicide, i think euthanasia depends on a lot of contextual factors. cuz i dont care if someone kills themself (its their right), but bringing someone else into the picture is kind of iffy.
i dunno, i would feel weird killing someone, but i wouldnt mind giving them a gun so they can do it themself..... thats how i feel about it.... i dunno
i'll let u know when i get there

 

[synapse lapse]

Perhaps you also should have put different categories for active and passive euthanasia.

 

[Ambs]

I don't agree with sustaining someone's life who is terminally ill, whose quality of life is absolutely horrible, who is physically suffering with no return. But someone who is perfectly healthy should, in my opinion, not be assisted with his/her death. In that event, I think that they should be immediately referred for psychological help or some other therapeutic treatment. I wouldn't automatically acknowledge a patient's request to die by assisting them; instead, I'd see if they could be helped. I've worked in the medical field for several years now, and I've seen severely depressed patients who have had multiple suicide attempts change their lives for the better. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I am always willing to try to see if someone can change.

 

[Ambs]

I agree - you would have gotten a lot more responses if you had made it confidential. Also, people wouldn't have been influenced or biased by others' (people they've come to know on SDN) votes.

 

[superdevil]

i'm pro suicide....i wouldnt mind giving them a gun so they can do it themself

holy crap, i don't know if i'm suddenly ******ed or what, but i've seen some classic posting on SDN tonight! (not mocking the post or anything, it just tickled me the right way).

 

[Ambs]

i'm undecided
even tho i'm pro suicide, i think euthanasia depends on a lot of contextual factors. cuz i dont care if someone kills themself (its their right), but bringing someone else into the picture is kind of iffy.
i dunno, i would feel weird killing someone, but i wouldnt mind giving them a gun so they can do it themself..... thats how i feel about it.... i dunno
i'll let u know when i get there

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

I have a runny nose - euthanize me!

Seriously, there are a lot of twits out there.

 

[Puppet]

Thent they dont deserve to be in the gene pool.

 

[PBR727]

Perhaps physician-assisted suicide?

Perhaps you also should have put different categories for active and passive euthanasia.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Thent they dont deserve to be in the gene pool.

I look forward to the day when these twits will come up with the comprehensive anwer to overpopulation, underproductivity in the workplace, and curing the common cold - and I'm letting you guess as to their "final solution".

 

[LevatorAni]

I don't agree with sustaining someone's life who is terminally ill, whose quality of life is absolutely horrible, who is physically suffering with no return. But someone who is perfectly healthy should, in my opinion, not be assisted with his/her death. In that event, I think that they should be immediately referred for psychological help or some other therapeutic treatment. I wouldn't automatically acknowledge a patient's request to die by assisting them; instead, I'd see if they could be helped. I've worked in the medical field for several years now, and I've seen severely depressed patients who have had multiple suicide attempts change their lives for the better. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I am always willing to try to see if someone can change.

euthanizing someone who is clinically depressed, i agree is morally wrong. but, someone who is looking towards a debilitating, painful demise should be able to say "when i get to this point, do it". we have the utmost respect for the wishes of the dead, but we deny living people the same courtesy.

current PAS laws in oregon require psychiatric evaluation and counseling before PAS is allowed. it's pretty obvious that someone with a terminal disease will be depressed and that's understandable. but, with proper counseling, if that person decides they want to die before the disease takes their life, let that be the final decision.

 

[aprilshyla]

There's a difference between "euthanasia" and "physician-assisted suicide."

Straight up euthansia is like when we put our animals to sleep. The decision is solely the doctor's to make, without the opinion of the patient or DNRs or next-of-kin. I can see very few instances where this could be acceptable, ie, a extremely physically deformed infant who only has a few hours maximum to live, and even that is debateable to some.

Then you have passive vs active euthanasia; passive is defined by inaction, ie, the doctor does NOT give life support to a dying individual (usually the easier one to swallow), whereas active is defined by the WITHDRAWL of life support in some way (removing feeding tube or ventilator), like the cruz/terry's law case (which, imho, they did the right thing in the end by withdrawing life support, especially since both expressed the desire to never be kept alive on machines when they were alive).

Physician assisted suicide is where the physician prescribes a lethal dose of a certain medicine that the patient then takes themselves, or sets up a system so that the patient twitches or pulls a lever or whatever is physically possible for them and causes their own death. The deal here is that the patient is the one who ultimately takes his own life, hence, suicide, but with the help of a physician who does NOT perform the final act.

These have very fine shades of differences in them, but I think they are important to the overall debate in what should or should not be legal.

Personally, I think every individual has the right to life as well as death, when the dignity of life is no longer possible. Of course "dignity of life" is something that must be personally defined too, it could be compromised for one person when they lose their legs due to diabetes, it could be still very much alive for another person who is completely paralyzed and dependent on others to live, and in both cases I think it ultimately comes down to the individual. So make sure we all fill out one of those advance directives sometime.

 

[aprilshyla]

current PAS laws in oregon require psychiatric evaluation and counseling before PAS is allowed. it's pretty obvious that someone with a terminal disease will be depressed and that's understandable. but, with proper counseling, if that person decides they want to die before the disease takes their life, let that be the final decision.

i agree -- i think the oregon laws are badass

 

[patzan]

Euthanasia ain't just a bunch of kids in China!

 

[Psycho Doctor]

I don't agree with sustaining someone's life who is terminally ill, whose quality of life is absolutely horrible, who is physically suffering with no return. But someone who is perfectly healthy should, in my opinion, not be assisted with his/her death. In that event, I think that they should be immediately referred for psychological help or some other therapeutic treatment. I wouldn't automatically acknowledge a patient's request to die by assisting them; instead, I'd see if they could be helped. I've worked in the medical field for several years now, and I've seen severely depressed patients who have had multiple suicide attempts change their lives for the better. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I am always willing to try to see if someone can change.

i agree with this 100%

 

[Psycho Doctor]

There's a difference between "euthanasia" and "physician-assisted suicide."

Straight up euthansia is like when we put our animals to sleep. The decision is solely the doctor's to make, without the opinion of the patient or DNRs or next-of-kin. I can see very few instances where this could be acceptable, ie, a extremely physically deformed infant who only has a few hours maximum to live, and even that is debateable to some.

Then you have passive vs active euthanasia; passive is defined by inaction, ie, the doctor does NOT give life support to a dying individual (usually the easier one to swallow), whereas active is defined by the WITHDRAWL of life support in some way (removing feeding tube or ventilator), like the cruz/terry's law case (which, imho, they did the right thing in the end by withdrawing life support, especially since both expressed the desire to never be kept alive on machines when they were alive).

Physician assisted suicide is where the physician prescribes a lethal dose of a certain medicine that the patient then takes themselves, or sets up a system so that the patient twitches or pulls a lever or whatever is physically possible for them and causes their own death. The deal here is that the patient is the one who ultimately takes his own life, hence, suicide, but with the help of a physician who does NOT perform the final act.

These have very fine shades of differences in them, but I think they are important to the overall debate in what should or should not be legal.

Personally, I think every individual has the right to life as well as death, when the dignity of life is no longer possible. Of course "dignity of life" is something that must be personally defined too, it could be compromised for one person when they lose their legs due to diabetes, it could be still very much alive for another person who is completely paralyzed and dependent on others to live, and in both cases I think it ultimately comes down to the individual. So make sure we all fill out one of those advance directives sometime.

great post

 

[tacrum43]

Thent they dont deserve to be in the gene pool.

Nice. You're going to make a caring physician one day.

 

[Blue Scrub]

I agree that, in certain situations, a patient may want to end their lives with dignity and without pain, and who else will know better how to do that than a trained physician. However, we as physicians will take the Hippocratic Oath, pledging that we shall do "no harm". We're in the profession of maintaining and preserving life, and its a tough position we will be put in when we're approached by someone who wishes to end their lives...I'd like to say I would help out the best way I can...

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Nice. You're going to make a caring physician one day.

The logical conclusion of evolution is Nazism, along the euthanasia, death camps, slave labor, subhuman races, and genocide.

 

[PublicEnemy]

actually, i think modern medicine has helped throw the evolution of genetics off course. there's no place for genetic cleansing anymore. who needs it? we got vaccines for everything. besides, we live in the magic pill era. you can take some prozach, zocor, nexium, a multivitamin and viagra and be good to go forever, just no celebrex or vioxx.

 

[Rzarecta]

The logical conclusion of evolution is Nazism, along the euthanasia, death camps, slave labor, subhuman races, and genocide.

Do you even understand the crap that comes out of your mouth?

 

[trinitrotoluene]

The logical conclusion of evolution is Nazism, along the euthanasia, death camps, slave labor, subhuman races, and genocide.

So is evernything else you see around you. You are the logical conclusion of evolution.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Do you even understand the crap that comes out of your mouth?

This is not crap - it's true. Nazism evolved not from Christianity or the enlightenment, it evolved from evolution. Survival of the fittest - embodied by the political, military, economic superiority of the Germanic peoples over the "inferior" mentally ******ed, Jews, Romas, and Slavs, and the "Latin Rabble."

 

[ElKapitan]

Passive Euthanasia isn't that already legal? I am pretty sure they are trying active Euthanasia in Denmark and it is causing many problems.

Also ignore the trolls in this thread.

 

[Croatalus_atrox]

This is not crap - it's true. Nazism evolved not from Christianity or the enlightenment, it evolved from evolution. Survival of the fittest - embodied by the political, military, economic superiority of the Germanic peoples over the "inferior" mentally ******ed, Jews, Romas, and Slavs, and the "Latin Rabble."

That's because scumbags will use and pervert anything they can find to support their twisted ideology, not out of anything inherently wrong with the theory of evolution. If those fools actually gave a damn about the implications of the TOE, then they would have understood that the more genetically diverse population is more likely to survive.

In fact, Hitler was very influenced by Christianity. Mein Kampf is littered with references to the Almighty, and the Divine Right of the Aryan race to rule and subjugate the inferior races. But we don't dismiss Christianity because one of its "adherents" twists its messages to his own ends. Look to the Spanish conquest of the Americas to see an instance where Christianity was explicitly used as justification for genocide and racism. That doesn't mean that Christianity is flawed and is responsible for racism, though.

Maybe people just suck. I'd blame that for all the wrong in the world before I'd blame any specific doctrine or belief system.

 

[typeB-md]

I agree that, in certain situations, a patient may want to end their lives with dignity and without pain, and who else will know better how to do that than a trained physician. However, we as physicians will take the Hippocratic Oath, pledging that we shall do "no harm". We're in the profession of maintaining and preserving life, and its a tough position we will be put in when we're approached by someone who wishes to end their lives...I'd like to say I would help out the best way I can...

the hippocratic oath is so outdated that it is hilarious. i hope you never perform an abortion and that you pray to the gods every night.

the physician's role is to help people. if a person believes that he/she will be 'helped' by having his/her life terminated, then so be it. The job of the physician is to help a patient maintain a quality life. If this cannot happen, sometimes death is a qualitatively better than a current 'living' status.