|
Final research project for English 
I've done a bunch of research on the topic. Different viewpoints of it, pros, cons, ethics/moralality.
I'm all for it, and that is the position I'm defending for the 7-page paper. I have experienced disease/struggles - almost unbearable. Call me weak, but I would rather have my life ended than live the remainder of it in misery, pain, suffering. The only thing keeping me going was a hope and a chance that the suffering would end. I can sympathize with the people who have it worse than I had it, and theirs is for the rest of their life. I understand their situation, and support euthanasia for their benefit.
What do you think?
Edit - dont do my hw for me, i just want to know what other people think
Edit2 - cleared up an ambiguous sentence
   
|
Belgium6765 Posts
Your skin problems have cleared up?
|
I dont understand your question, I think it should be legalized but thats about it.
|
I support euthanasia fully. I can't be bothered justifying my viewpoint to pro-lifers though, and that's where any controversial tl thread is inevitably headed: a massive shitfest.
|
On May 21 2008 01:32 H_ wrote: I support euthanasia fully. I can't be bothered justifying my viewpoint to pro-lifers though, and that's where any controversial tl thread is inevitably headed: a massive shitfest.
Agreed on all points here. I don't want some uppity moral-toting faggot to tell me I can't end my own life if I'm suffering from terminal cancer or something.
|
Belgium8305 Posts
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 21 2008 01:32 H_ wrote: I support euthanasia fully. I can't be bothered justifying my viewpoint to pro-lifers though, and that's where any controversial tl thread is inevitably headed: a massive shitfest. I'm pro-death and anti-choice.
|
CA10824 Posts
|
Why do we need it, we're all going to die don't be a pussy when your time comes.
|
On May 21 2008 02:02 iheartgna wrote: Why do we need it, we're all going to die don't be a pussy when your time comes.
|
On May 21 2008 01:41 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2008 01:32 H_ wrote: I support euthanasia fully. I can't be bothered justifying my viewpoint to pro-lifers though, and that's where any controversial tl thread is inevitably headed: a massive shitfest. Agreed on all points here. I don't want some uppity moral-toting faggot to tell me I can't end my own life if I'm suffering from terminal cancer or something.
There is a difference between suicide and Euthanasia. Euthanasia is when the doctor actively takes away your life by administering some sort of lethal substance into your body to end your life. Physician assisted suicide is when the doctor provides you the means to kill yourself, but in the end the patient has to "push the button." Suicide is when the patient does everything on his/her own to kill themselves.
Some patients are not able to end their lives on their own because of the physical situation they might be in. That is where they request Euthanasia. The dilemma arises when it becomes the doctor doing the killing. If you want to do suicide, fine, go ahead; but when the doctor has to play the role in killing the patient, that is when the debate comes up.
I think I support Euthanasia only in extremely severe cases. The thing about legalizing euthanasia is that where can we draw the line of when a person can request to end their life? It becomes a slippery slope argument.
|
United States22883 Posts
To all pro-lifers, I ask you this: If euthanasia is outlawed, then who will be the next Keanu Reeves?
Yeah, I thought so.
|
United Arab Emirates5091 Posts
The whole pro life argument is just so naive and religiously fueled that it's annoying. If I have a sickness that has no cure then what is so wrong with me finishing what I have to do then ending my life with dignity. I do not want my family and friends to see me cough up blood, totally weak, losing my hair, need assistance when I need to take a crap and be in excruciating pain all the while knowing that nothing can save me.
Sometimes it is the mark of true strength to be able to let go of someone.
|
the youth-in-asia should be legalized and there needs to be more awareness of youth-in-asia. youth-in-asia are our future. well not ours, actually, just asia's.
on a more serious note, it is a very controvorsial topic, and the feds should just fuck off - leave it to the states, like the constitution says. same could be said for abortion. the presidency, nor even congressmen and senators should be divided up on a topic such as this. not that it is not important, but state governments should decide, and the president and federal legislators need to focus on other stuff.
abortion and euthanasia becoming major "issues" for the presidency instead of balancing the budget, the legitimacy of the federal reserve and our fractional reserve (inflationary) banking system, warmongering some corner of the earth constantly since 1950 should be discussed. as important as topics like abortion and euthanasia are, those are individual decisions, and state decisions. that may be argued as to which one it is, but for sure it is not the fed's. in a disproportionate and illegitimate way, such topics like these become a "front" issue, diverting focus from the real issues. much like how the "battle" between dems and reps are a "front", while both parties pursue the same major policies. two sides of the same coin.
for example: hilary has granted everything bush wanted. both obama and hilary criticize bush, but they won't pull the troops out. they say it was "mismanaged" and better planning or whatever shit that sounds like they are against the status quo, but essentially supporting it. if we look closely and examine who is really against the war from its roots, its foundational philosophies, we have ron paul. "no nation building, trade with all, war and alliance with none." he's extremely close and even a replica of the founding fathers' positions on virtually everything. we look at bush, cheyney, hilary, obama, mccain we have one common thread: CFR membership. and they always tend to be more loyal to some twisted double-talking adgenda that is ALWAYS against the constitution. and with that association, you usually have secret society memberships as well as other groups like bilderberg, triliateral commission, bohemian grove... don't dismiss it as paranoid shit - look it up for yourself. first they said they don't exist, then they admit they exist, but it's benign (but they still can't tell you anything, it's a secret). then they go public with a superhighway... um hello? why don't we lend an ear to those who have been saying that it was a secretive, unconstitutional, pro-world government group FROM THE VERY BEGINNIG?!
CFR. start there.
|
On May 21 2008 02:17 GrayArea wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2008 01:41 Hawk wrote:On May 21 2008 01:32 H_ wrote: I support euthanasia fully. I can't be bothered justifying my viewpoint to pro-lifers though, and that's where any controversial tl thread is inevitably headed: a massive shitfest. Agreed on all points here. I don't want some uppity moral-toting faggot to tell me I can't end my own life if I'm suffering from terminal cancer or something. There is a difference between suicide and Euthanasia. Euthanasia is when the doctor actively takes away your life by administering some sort of lethal substance into your body to end your life. Physician assisted suicide is when the doctor provides you the means to kill yourself, but in the end the patient has to "push the button." Suicide is when the patient does everything on his/her own to kill themselves. Some patients are not able to end their lives on their own because of the physical situation they might be in. That is where they request Euthanasia. The dilemma arises when it becomes the doctor doing the killing. If you want to do suicide, fine, go ahead; but when the doctor has to play the role in killing the patient, that is when the debate comes up. I think I support Euthanasia only in extremely severe cases. The thing about legalizing euthanasia is that where can we draw the line of when a person can request to end their life? It becomes a slippery slope argument.
I know what it, i consider it one in the same.
|
On May 21 2008 02:29 Jibba wrote: To all pro-lifers, I ask you this: If euthanasia is outlawed, then who will be the next Keanu Reeves?
Yeah, I thought so.
Im lost
|
On May 21 2008 02:51 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2008 02:17 GrayArea wrote:On May 21 2008 01:41 Hawk wrote:On May 21 2008 01:32 H_ wrote: I support euthanasia fully. I can't be bothered justifying my viewpoint to pro-lifers though, and that's where any controversial tl thread is inevitably headed: a massive shitfest. Agreed on all points here. I don't want some uppity moral-toting faggot to tell me I can't end my own life if I'm suffering from terminal cancer or something. There is a difference between suicide and Euthanasia. Euthanasia is when the doctor actively takes away your life by administering some sort of lethal substance into your body to end your life. Physician assisted suicide is when the doctor provides you the means to kill yourself, but in the end the patient has to "push the button." Suicide is when the patient does everything on his/her own to kill themselves. Some patients are not able to end their lives on their own because of the physical situation they might be in. That is where they request Euthanasia. The dilemma arises when it becomes the doctor doing the killing. If you want to do suicide, fine, go ahead; but when the doctor has to play the role in killing the patient, that is when the debate comes up. I think I support Euthanasia only in extremely severe cases. The thing about legalizing euthanasia is that where can we draw the line of when a person can request to end their life? It becomes a slippery slope argument. I know what it, i consider it one in the same.
If you consider it the same, you are missing the whole point of the Euthanasia issue. In fact, you are not even addressing it.
|
What about braindead. They can't make the decision. Their autonomonues sytems keep their heart beating and their lungs breathing. They are empty biological shells. Why waste money on them to keep those zombies alive.
|
well, an issue just as big is the fact that the people requesting euthanasia may not be in their right mind (ie old, suffering from mental problems). this puts it down to the families (not the doctors)
|
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 21 2008 02:53 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2008 02:29 Jibba wrote: To all pro-lifers, I ask you this: If euthanasia is outlawed, then who will be the next Keanu Reeves?
Yeah, I thought so. Im lost  Man, I thought you would get that reference.
|
Meh, dont watch southpark enough to know that one =p
|
was the film called sleepers? or maybe flatliners? ... nope sorry
edit: Constantine? i give up
|
the moral debate is something completely divorced from the legal or political debate.
we can reach a conclusion for or against it, but it is entirely another issue whethe it should be a uniform law accross the land. it goes into philosophy of governing at that point. luckily we have a document that clears up a lot of stuff.
The constitution is all for individual liberties and keeping the government from becoming large and obtrussive to individual liberties. is suicide a crime? helping another that wishes to commit suicide who cannot do it themselves, or are unconscious.
they are not easy decisions by any means. and of course legalizing it could lead to abuses and unintended outcomes, like humans always do with everything. so i believe there needs to be a more pragmatic approach and decision that considers all of the potential abuses. (like how the some agree with the death penalty in principle, but because so many rich ppl are getting away while mostly black ppl are getting the axe, are now opposed to the death penalty).
the constitution holds individual liberty at the highest and if it goes to a governmental level it, reserves that decision for the states, not the federal government. legal issue very much cleared up. moral issue: any human being shouldn't be so readily willing to give someone the axe, no matter how muhc they want it. i mean, this is more of a basic and intuitive thing, i'm not saying anything too controvorsial here.
yet the problem remains. should it be legal? is suicide illegal? will they lock up someone who is trying to kill themselves as commiting a crime? could those people could talk to the suicide hotline too. should the doctors help with it? should the person or family decide and do it themselves? if the person wants assisted suicide, is the doctor the only person they can ask??? (comon seriously). why place the burden comepltely on the doctor? domains of right: it is first and foremost the patient/individual's decision. then maybe it might go to family before the doctor. i don't get why the fixation must be held on the doctor's decision.
|
gwho touched on it but I think it's so important to understand that one of the major reasons of sane (ie. not religious) argument against euthanasia is that it would be too easy for a son who wants his 80-something year old mother to die because he wants her inheritance to just give her a little 'suggestion' in the direction of euthanasia.
There is such a fine line between self-control and self-abandon, and basically any space past self-control is dangerous.
Euthanasia for clearly proven, terminally dying people who are experiencing great agony is impossible to argue against; but I personally think it would need to be executed only after a trial in front of a jury of doctors and legal men. You can't just have throwaway euthanasia or you will have murder on your hands.
|
Call me weak, but I would rather have my life ended than live the remainder of it in misery, pain, suffering. The only thing keeping me going was knowing that it was going to end. I can sympathize with the people who have it worse than I had it, and theirs is for the rest of their life.
So you'd be dead if euthanasia was legal? Doesn't that make you think even a little? You'd miss TSL for Pete sakes! [EDIT: BTW, I wouldn't call it weak, but I would call it selfish]
There's a lot of times in my life when I wish I could just press a button, and end it. But I know that I'm glad I'm alive today. Maybe I won't be tomorrow, but that's life.
There are a lot of problems with euthanasia, and I'll bring up the first two that you seem to be completely missing:
1: You're asking a someone to commit murder. Even if it's a mercy killing, the doctor still has to do it, and still has to live with the fact that he's (or she's) killed someone (in a profession he chose because he wanted to save lives). That's not a nice thing to ask people to do.
2: You would have to argue that you're of sound mind and sound body to request such a killing. This alone contradicts the whole idea of a mercy killing. If you're not in a stable state of mind, is it really okay to request death, when later you might not be? The only solution to this is to state ahead of time (ie: when you are of sound mind and sound body), that if you should ever befall some terrible illness, you should be killed. Perhaps that's reasonable.
I will say, that if someone has a terminal illness, and it's guaranteed the last of their days will be spent in horrific suffering, they should have the right to choose death based on my thoughts in point two. But you've still got the moral issues of forcing doctors to kill people, and the possibility of creating a profession specific to euthanasia so that real doctors don't.
|
On May 21 2008 05:45 PsycHOTemplar wrote:Show nested quote +Call me weak, but I would rather have my life ended than live the remainder of it in misery, pain, suffering. The only thing keeping me going was knowing that it was going to end. I can sympathize with the people who have it worse than I had it, and theirs is for the rest of their life. So you'd be dead if euthanasia was legal? Doesn't that make you think even a little? You'd miss TSL for Pete sakes! [EDIT: BTW, I wouldn't call it weak, but I would call it selfish] There's a lot of times in my life when I wish I could just press a button, and end it. But I know that I'm glad I'm alive today. Maybe I won't be tomorrow, but that's life. No, sorry my post was ambiguous. "The only thing keeping me going was knowing that it was going to end." "It" was referring to the suffering. There was hope that one day the suffering was going to end, which is why i didnt give up. hopefully, that clears it up - im not suicidal/depressed heh.
Edit - i should edit my opening post so i dont convey the wrong message
|
Ohh, lol. I thought you were misdiagnosed as a terminal case or something.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
|
I pro-plug-pulling. Most of these people no longer have lives, they are mere shells of themselves. If I remember correctly, some of them are still conscious but unable to move at all - do you imagine what kind of torture that is, a mind trapped inside a body, seeing relatives struggle monetarily and emotionally over you, with you not being able to do a thing about it?
|
On May 21 2008 05:45 PsycHOTemplar wrote: 1: You're asking a someone to commit murder. Even if it's a mercy killing, the doctor still has to do it, and still has to live with the fact that he's (or she's) killed someone (in a profession he chose because he wanted to save lives). That's not a nice thing to ask people to do.
Lawful and well-intentioned euthanasia is not murder in any sense of the word.
2: You would have to argue that you're of sound mind and sound body to request such a killing. This alone contradicts the whole idea of a mercy killing. If you're not in a stable state of mind, is it really okay to request death, when later you might not be? The only solution to this is to state ahead of time (ie: when you are of sound mind and sound body), that if you should ever befall some terrible illness, you should be killed. Perhaps that's reasonable.
That made no sense.
But you've still got the moral issues of forcing doctors to kill people, and the possibility of creating a profession specific to euthanasia so that real doctors don't.
In the one state where it is legal in my country, no doctor is forced to perform euthanasia.
|
This essay addresses the issue of having a fundamental human right to death. In terms of discussing 'rights' - the concept of consent must be a non-variable constant.
I believe that suicide is a fundamental human right. We humans exist as beings without our consent, at least not until we are capable of being aware of our own existence. There are no objective grounds upon which we have a duty to continue living.
Suicide is not punishable as a criminal act in most jurisdictions. Attempted suicides generally fall under involuntary institutionalisation laws. Assisted suicide, however, remains illegal - the general rationale being that there are insufficient safeguards surrounding potential exploitation of the rule of law.
But consider this: If someone wants to end their life bad enough, or if someone else wants to end that one person's life bad enough - they will find a way to do it. This denies the ideal of absolute justice, and legislation on the issue thus becomes a balancing act. To take two examples:
1. Whether one is pro-choice or pro-life in the abortion debate - it can be generally accepted that post conception life has the potential to form. If the law takes the position to ban abortion completely, the solution is to try and shape society so that unplanned pregnancies occur less. Alternatively, it can allow abortions to attempt to minimise the immediate and present harm that would otherwise be caused.
2. Should the age of consent for sex be at 16, the law can either allow the introduction of contraception to minors or ban access altogether. The former position attempts to minimise harm whilst the latter depends on society's competence in being able to maintain abstinence.
The theory of reality states that you can either acknowledge reality and use it to your [/society's] benefit, or it will automatically work against you [/society]. Progressive moral theory may begin with accepting reality with a view of working towards idealism, and libertarianism would perhaps be at the other end of the spectrum - believing that the ideal will shape the reality.
Regardless of the method of implementation - after accepting that death is a fundamental human right and the theory of reality is addressed - the question then becomes whether anyone else has the right to take someone else's life? The answer must be yes, if consent is given. The exception is in a situation where the sacrificing of one life is required to save two or more. Ceteris paribus, then that one person's consent is irrelevant - as the value of two lives outweighs the life of one.
+ Show Spoiler + Rodney Hide (ACT NZ): We are hearing tonight Parliament at its best, because we have a very fine bill put up by Mr Peter Brown. Whether one is for it or against it, Mr Brown¡¦s motives are honest and true. We have heard two very good speeches tonight against the bill. I want to speak in favour of Mr Brown¡¦s bill, as a matter of principle and as a matter of personal experience. The principle is this. I believe that we, not the State, do own our own body and our life. I believe that if we choose to we can end our life. It is obviously the most drastic decision that a person can take, but one can do that. I believe that it is an affront to deny people who want to end their life the dignity of ending it in a way that is humane.
That is what our current law does. Of course we have to have a sharp line between suicide and murder, and this bill has that. That is why I support the bill. I ask members at least to send it to a select committee and hear what the people have to say.
I want to raise a memory of a man whom many members knew¡XMartin Hames, who died last year on 8 August. If Mr Brown¡¦s bill had been the law, Martin Hames would still be with us, I am sure. He would not have needed to take his own life, as he did. He had Huntington¡¦s disease. He discovered in 1979 that his mother had it. He did not marry, because he had a 50 percent chance of getting it, and he was diagnosed with Huntington¡¦s disease. He had watched his mother die a terrible death¡Xa death where one loses one¡¦s mind and loses control, to the extent that one cannot swallow.
Martin Hames loved life. He loved independence. He could not stand the thought of ending without the ability to swallow. Last year he prepared everything. He swallowed a whole lot of pills and he passed out. He had bought new pyjamas, and he had a note pinned to his chest saying ¡§Please do not resuscitate¡¨. The ambulance came, and they resuscitated him. He came to in hospital, and they said to Martin Hames that he had septicaemia in his legs and they wanted to take them off. He said: ¡§What would happen if you don¡¦t take my legs off?¡¨, and they said: ¡§You will die.¡¨ He said: ¡§Well, good, because I have Huntington¡¦s disease.¡¨
They gave him some pain relief and pushed him off to the side in Wellington Hospital, and he spent the day dying. I dreaded going to see Martin Hames and saying goodbye to a very special friend, but one of the greatest things I have ever done is seeing a man dying with dignity. He told me, when I went in there, and he told all his friends¡Xfrom Treasury, from Michael Cullen¡¦s office, people from across the political spectrum who had worked with him, and from the National Party¡Xthat he was having a good death. He used to call me ¡§Boss¡¨, and he said: ¡§I¡¦m having a good death, Boss, because I didn¡¦t think I¡¦d get the opportunity to say goodbye to all my friends.¡¨ He had that chance.
We all went in there and, rather than feeling sad, I felt great to see a man who could face his death with such generosity and love of life and friends, and who had been dealt a cruel hand but was not complaining. Martin slipped away that night.
He had written a great book called The Crisis in New Zealand Schools, and he was well on the way to having written a second book, on the Treaty of Waitangi , which would have benefited us all. But he never got to finish it. We do not know whether Martin could have lived for another 10 years, working and writing, because he had to take his own life before it was taken from him.
Death with Dignity Bill - First Reading, Hansard, 30 July 2003
|
|
|
|