Euthanasia for Mental Illness - Page 5
Forum Index > General Forum |
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9024 Posts
| ||
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 03 2015 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote: I just don't see how if one (physically able person) really wants to kill themselves how they wouldn't be able to do it without putting it on other people. I feel like if you can't do it yourself then you really just don't want it enough. Some part of you is still desperately hanging onto life, so people shouldn't just outsource it because they can't handle it. You completely ignored the points that I and others have brought up in response to this "just do it yourself" idea. The fact that (where it is allowed), applying for assisted suicide makes it legal, whereas doing it on your own is inherently illegal, is probably enough on its own to make the majority of people choose this method, not to mention the other issues I brought up. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22201 Posts
On July 03 2015 09:03 Stratos_speAr wrote: You completely ignored the points that I and others have brought up in response to this "just do it yourself" idea. The fact that (where it is allowed), applying for assisted suicide makes it legal, whereas doing it on your own is inherently illegal, is probably enough on its own to make the majority of people choose this method, not to mention the other issues I brought up. I admit I skipped a lot of posts so I'll check on your other points. Until then: What's the punishment for a criminal suicide? EDIT: Think I found what you're talking about, I wouldn't have a problem with doctors helping, I just think they should commit the suicide themselves. | ||
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
Jek
Denmark2771 Posts
On July 03 2015 07:38 Uldridge wrote: I feel like I need to address quality of life issue again. How much longer are you willing to fight for yourself when you are constantly monitored, taking pills to alter your brain chemistry, feel like you're being altered against your natural state of mind? For some people this becomes their normal brain chemistry and even when they might become "cured" at one point in their lives, the chance of plunging back into the abbyss always stays relevant. I feel that if you don't have the power to even keep trying to make yourself better through external help because it constrains not only yourself but the other people invested in you (yes, depressed people still account for people other than themselves, I'd dare to say sometimes even more), you have the absolute right to ask for euthanasia. Depending on your definition of natural state of mind, with a severe mood disorder your mood regulating hormones are usually out of whack (to put it frank) and as such you are not in a natural state of mind, compared to a "normal" person. While everyone has the right to ask for euthanasia, I feel like some cases should always be refused; suffering from a mood disorder being one of them. Futher reasoning for my belief expressed in next answer. When treatment starts to work, it's actually quite terrifying when you come to the realization that you've not been living as your "true self" before. As odd as it may sound. On July 03 2015 07:45 Crushinator wrote: I actually don't know. But considering she spent most of her life depressed, I would assume she has pursued plenty of treatment options. Imo there is no reason to assume that those who considered her request were negligent on this front. Seeing as you are familiar with severe depression: Can you honestly say that someone who has spent such a long time in such a state and has thus far not had benefits from treatment, is being irrational in wanting to end their life? How long does she need to be this way before you are satisfied, if ever? I believe every single sort of depressive disorder has a cause that can be "fixed", be the disorder induced by trauma, chemical inbalance, genetical or something else. Every case is unique and the "cure" I believe can just as likely be unique patient from patient. As such, I dont think euthanasia should ever be an option for persons suffering from a mood disorder. I am probably horrible biased since I've come to live a somewhat stable life, after over a decade of struggling. Until all possible forms of treatment, be it traditional or alternative, have been tried and tested the mere thought of euthanasia should never even cross the doctors as an option and even then they should still try to desperately help their patient instead of being willing to help take their life away. As much as the doctors wants and tries to help, it can be just as hard for them to find the right diagnosis making treatment in some cases extremely hard. On July 03 2015 07:45 BigFan wrote: I agree with your post for the most part but to clarify the medication and time aspect. To be fair, while there a lot of options for depression, with certain classes of medications such as SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) like citalopram for example, usually you see maximum results in 6-8 weeks (you see energy increases, mood changes and such happening in 3 and 4-6 weeks respectively) then can titrate up as needed and if that doesn't work, try another class of medication etc... I guess what I want to say is that while 3 years sound so little, I can see how they could've tried a lot of different medications based on the timeline I previously mentioned Also, the two medications you mentioned are mostly used in bipolar or schizophrenia (quetiapine) so they are different and the experience can't be compared directly. edit: depression is also pretty terrible so it's always saddening to see people (not necessarily on here) reply with 'get over it' or 'just get yourself to do it' kind of attitude instead of trying to understand how it works. I still find just 3 years of treatment sound extremely low, cases of psychotic depressions (which I guess she suffers from) from my understand can easily take a lot longer to treat. Wasn't aware she had been in treatment since teen years when I made my post tho. In hindsight, I think I'm fairly uneducated in regards to strictly antidepressives, as I was quickly pulled off them. SNRI (effexor) had the "fun" side-effect of putting me in a constant hypomania. | ||
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On July 03 2015 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote: I just don't see how if one (physically able person) really wants to kill themselves how they wouldn't be able to do it without putting it on other people. I feel like if you can't do it yourself then you really just don't want it enough. Some part of you is still desperately hanging onto life, so people shouldn't just outsource it because they can't handle it. Suicide pretty much always involves adding other people into it. They might not be pulling the proverbial trigger but odds are someone who didn't want to be involved is going to be dragged in. Whether its the train conductor who just watched someone jump in front of his train, or the sister that finds her brother's brains blown out. At the very least someone has to find your dead body and that person probably didn't want to find your dead body, and there's nothing to say that the person that did find it has the mental fortitude to deal with that. So run of the mill suicide isn't victimless by any stretch of the imagination. At least with assisted suicide the doctor will have signed off on it and made peace with it. He's not going to be surprised by walking in on a scene. It's much less violent and more peaceful than many standard options as well. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22201 Posts
On July 03 2015 09:39 OuchyDathurts wrote: Suicide pretty much always involves adding other people into it. They might not be pulling the proverbial trigger but odds are someone who didn't want to be involved is going to be dragged in. Whether its the train conductor who just watched someone jump in front of his train, or the sister that finds her brother's brains blown out. At the very least someone has to find your dead body and that person probably didn't want to find your dead body, and there's nothing to say that the person that did find it has the mental fortitude to deal with that. So run of the mill suicide isn't victimless by any stretch of the imagination. At least with assisted suicide the doctor will have signed off on it and made peace with it. He's not going to be surprised by walking in on a scene. It's much less violent and more peaceful than many standard options as well. Well there are reasonably safe, easy, clean, ways to commit suicide, but they tend not to get published as to not entice the questionably stationed among us. My larger point is don't make someone else take your life. Whether the physician signed up for it or not, it seems ridiculous that the suicidal person can't commit the suicide themselves. Make it as easy as you want (like pushing a button to release a drip) but let the patient push the button. | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 03 2015 09:32 Jek wrote: Depending on your definition of natural state of mind, with a severe mood disorder your mood regulating hormones are usually out of whack (to put it frank) and as such you are not in a natural state of mind, compared to a "normal" person. While everyone has the right to ask for euthanasia, I feel like some cases should always be refused; suffering from a mood disorder being one of them. Futher reasoning for my belief expressed in next answer. When treatment starts to work, it's actually quite terrifying when you come to the realization that you've not been living as your "true self" before. As odd as it may sound. I believe every single sort of depressive disorder has a cause that can be "fixed", be the disorder induced by trauma, chemical inbalance, genetical or something else. Every case is unique and the "cure" I believe can just as likely be unique patient from patient. As such, I dont think euthanasia should ever be an option for persons suffering from a mood disorder. I am probably horrible biased since I've come to live a somewhat stable life, after over a decade of struggling. Until all possible forms of treatment, be it traditional or alternative, have been tried and tested the mere thought of euthanasia should never even cross the doctors as an option and even then they should still try to desperately help their patient instead of being willing to help take their life away. As much as the doctors wants and tries to help, it can be just as hard for them to find the right diagnosis making treatment in some cases extremely hard. I still find just 3 years of treatment sound extremely low, cases of psychotic depressions (which I guess she suffers from) from my understand can easily take a lot longer to treat. Wasn't aware she had been in treatment since teen years when I made my post tho. In hindsight, I think I'm fairly uneducated in regards to strictly antidepressives, as I was quickly pulled off them. SNRI (effexor) had the "fun" side-effect of putting me in a constant hypomania. Trust me on this one Yes, antidepressants are never given to someone with bipolar because they can swing a patient into mania like you had. Out of curiosity, did you get to try lithium? | ||
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
On July 03 2015 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote: Well there are reasonably safe, easy, clean, ways to commit suicide, but they tend not to get published as to not entice the questionably stationed among us. My larger point is don't make someone else take your life. Whether the physician signed up for it or not, it seems ridiculous that the suicidal person can't commit the suicide themselves. Make it as easy as you want (like pushing a button to release a drip) but let the patient push the button. Most of the people who "involve someone else" in assisted suicide do it for an abundance of reasons that are completely arbitrary to the legal and social system they reside in. They choose to openly discuss the issue and involve legal professionals because other wise it creates social or legal issues for their families and loved ones. By going public you also push forward a social agenda rather than just dying, it forces the public to recognize the issues that push people to suicide rather than hiding it under the carpet which just perpetuates the status quo. Regardless of whether or not you believe suicide should be a legal or moral right, unless society can talk about it and debate it seriously and incorporate it into a legal code, suicidal individuals will never receive the help and attention they deserve (and need to actually move forward with their lives) due to fear of social oppression and added negative consequences to their social circle. The principle of assisted suicide is consent and dialogue, rather than forcing other people to deal with it in your absence. It also shifts the public focus on the "victim" rather than his family and alleviates the negative social consequences. I know personally some families that would have much preferred to understand why somebody made such a decision in their lives, even if it lead to the same outcome, rather than having to live with the fact that they will never truly understand AND the blame and guilt placed on them for it occurring. Case in point: Terry Pratchett had more than enough resources to die in a "safe, easy, and clean" way, but instead he chose to pursue assisted suicide and engaged the public in discussions, lectures, and helped present a BBC documentary on the matter. I would argue that his actions helped push forward the public conscience and was a positive good for the British society rather than a negative. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22201 Posts
On July 03 2015 13:59 Caihead wrote: Most of the people who "involve someone else" in assisted suicide do it for an abundance of reasons that are completely arbitrary to the legal and social system they reside in. They choose to openly discuss the issue and involve legal professionals because other wise it creates social or legal issues for their families and loved ones. By going public you also push forward a social agenda rather than just dying, it forces the public to recognize the issues that push people to suicide rather than hiding it under the carpet which just perpetuates the status quo. Regardless of whether or not you believe suicide should be a legal or moral right, unless society can talk about it and debate it seriously and incorporate it into a legal code, suicidal individuals will never receive the help and attention they deserve (and need to actually move forward with their lives) due to fear of social oppression and added negative consequences to their social circle. The principle of assisted suicide is consent and dialogue, rather than forcing other people to deal with it in your absence. It also shifts the public focus on the "victim" rather than his family and alleviates the negative social consequences. I know personally some families that would have much preferred to understand why somebody made such a decision in their lives, even if it lead to the same outcome, rather than having to live with the fact that they will never truly understand AND the blame and guilt placed on them for it occurring. Case in point: Terry Pratchett had more than enough resources to die in a "safe, easy, and clean" way, but instead he chose to pursue assisted suicide and engaged the public in discussions, lectures, and helped present a BBC documentary on the matter. I would argue that his actions helped push forward the public conscience and was a positive good for the British society rather than a negative. I'm not generally talking about elderly or dying people. I'm talking about reasonably youthful depressed people. Though I still think so long as they are able, they should all be "pressing their own button" I'd prefer mental healthcare not focus exclusively on western medicine and would look deeper into what is the source for people's depression. Especially if they are going to, what seems to me, to be caving into adult children's tantrums for someone to kill them. If they aren't even going to "push the button" themselves then I think the medical community should keep trying to address the depression. Having the doctor do it, plays into the often present mentality, that everything is happening to them and that it is outside of their control (no matter how much influence they themselves play). | ||
Quixotic_tv
Germany130 Posts
The whole problem of nearly anything that is going wrong today is the underlying philosophy of radical egocentrism. "I am smart enough to decide about ANYTHING, also about life and death. I can declare what is human life worth living and what isn't." It is like you are your own magisterium and supreme court together. The modern claim, in its core, is that the human mind is totally superior to matter, which, without you knowing it I assume, is Gnosis reloaded. You may call it relativism, or nothing, because fewer and fewer people care anymore about the most important fundament of civilization, which is philosophy. Underestimating philosophy is the core fallacy of any contemporary movement, like the brights. We are killing philosophy by denying an objective truth. And by killing philosophy, trying to have it replaced by natural sciences, we are killing our civilization. Relativism is ignoring the fact that we, as a whole mankind, or as a single human being, actually do not know enough to judge one topics like life or death. And that's why we have to be very careful even considering ending someone's life. To cut it short: Heliocentrism has been replaced by egocentrism. I beg you to learn anything you can get regarding philosophy. Call me fatalistic or reactionary, but otherwise we are doomed. | ||
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
| ||
Gzerble
82 Posts
My brother is a doctor. When he was choosing what to specialize in, he worked many jobs, to get a taste for the field. Very few truly disturbed him. One of our parents had cancer; our time there left me avoiding hospitals for years. The nights there are usually dead silent except for a few people who can't sleep because the painkillers aren't strong enough. That moaning, when they're too weak to make any other noise... you don't forget that. You'd think something like the oncological ward would be the worst; people there are being eaten from the inside, and are treated with poison that kills cancer faster than it kills them. People there are in pain you can't really imagine. I thought that nothing could be worse than that. Then he told me about how people die of schizophrenia. What people know about it is that you hear voices, feel compulsions to do things, see things that aren't there. What most people don't know is that over time, it also degrades cognitive functions. What people choose not to understand is that there is no cure, and that it only gets worse over time. People die of schizophrenia when they realize that and kill themselves. They kill themselves when they have the realization that it is only a matter of time before their brain degrades to the point where they won't be able to make that choice. That they won't be able to make any choices. That the person, who they really are, is dying, and what will be left is a disease inside their body to haunt anyone that ever cared about them. He told me about some extreme cases of treatment-resistant depressive disorder. People with it aren't unaware that what they're feeling isn't rational. Some of them are extremely clever. But they just can't cope with the world. They can't hold a job. It's a struggle to get out of bed. They can't be good parents, not when they can break down into a weeping mess at any given moment. And they know that theoretically, if only they could ignore that irrational part of themselves, they could live out life like everyone else. Except that's impossible, and the only reason people think it is possible is because they don't understand that this is a disease. So add feelings of inadequacy, personal failure, and at a certain point, they just want nothing more than for it to stop. They always try and kill themselves, while the rest of the world seems to fight for prolonging their suffering. It ends up with suicide, or the facilities where they're locked in for life incarcerating them in a way that they cannot kill themselves while doping them up on a ton of drugs. So, when a doctor says that the worst suffering he's seen is a woman in her moment of clarity realizing she broke her (55 year old) mom's legs because the voices in her head told her so and she could find nothing more natural to do at the time, rather than his own parent suffering through chemotherapy, then perhaps the question should be, dare we not consider it? In this case, to be approved through the supreme court, then it means all treatment options have been tried. It's either dope her up on extreme doses of drugs, keep her monitored 24/7, force her to live in an institution for the rest of her life where eventually no one will visit her anymore, and have her still want to kill herself during that time and occasionally try, or to allow her at least some dignity. People who know nothing about mental disease might think that this is any different an issue than someone with other forms of incurable and debilitating conditions. It isn't. Some cases are extreme enough to warrant euthanasia. I'm glad the court was enlightened enough to allow her choice in the matter, and that this huge step towards eliminating the bias against mental illness ("nutters", "crazy people", "they just need to get laid", "why can't they just buck up and cope?", etc). edit: also, considering she's been in an institution for years, it is actually not trivial to kill yourself there. Those things are built to make it as hard as possible to commit suicide. "do it yourself" isn't an option there. | ||
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9024 Posts
On July 03 2015 16:23 Quixotic_tv wrote: Just the fact that you are discussing about a depressive person, otherwise healthy, to kill herself as an option is totally insane. I have honestly no other words for that, so feel free to be offended. With all the events in the last years, I feel like living in the novel Sophie's World, where at the end the whole reality is collapsing, becoming more and more unrealistic, because the story is ending. The whole problem of nearly anything that is going wrong today is the underlying philosophy of radical egocentrism. "I am smart enough to decide about ANYTHING, also about life and death. I can declare what is human life worth living and what isn't." It is like you are your own magisterium and supreme court together. The modern claim, in its core, is that the human mind is totally superior to matter, which, without you knowing it I assume, is Gnosis reloaded. You may call it relativism, or nothing, because fewer and fewer people care anymore about the most important fundament of civilization, which is philosophy. Underestimating philosophy is the core fallacy of any contemporary movement, like the brights. We are killing philosophy by denying an objective truth. And by killing philosophy, trying to have it replaced by natural sciences, we are killing our civilization. Relativism is ignoring the fact that we, as a whole mankind, or as a single human being, actually do not know enough to judge one topics like life or death. And that's why we have to be very careful even considering ending someone's life. To cut it short: Heliocentrism has been replaced by egocentrism. I beg you to learn anything you can get regarding philosophy. Call me fatalistic or reactionary, but otherwise we are doomed. This thread in of itself is very philosophical, so no, no-one is underestimating philosophy, IMHO we are just moving towards a different kind of philosophy. Besides, your post is pretty much 'word salad' anyway. We are killing philosophy by denying an objective truth You seem to have forgotten to tell us this objective truth. This sentence just appears to be here as a vague reinforcement of whatever point you are trying to make. If you're that interested in philosophy, be more specific as to what you mean, put your argument in a clear format with a definite conclusion and some sort of evidence or logical thread to back that up. Frankly your post is just some babble that starts with the point that you disagree with euthanasia for mental illness patients. | ||
Superouman
France2195 Posts
| ||
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On July 03 2015 16:23 Quixotic_tv wrote: Just the fact that you are discussing about a depressive person, otherwise healthy, to kill herself as an option is totally insane. I have honestly no other words for that, so feel free to be offended. With all the events in the last years, I feel like living in the novel Sophie's World, where at the end the whole reality is collapsing, becoming more and more unrealistic, because the story is ending. The whole problem of nearly anything that is going wrong today is the underlying philosophy of radical egocentrism. "I am smart enough to decide about ANYTHING, also about life and death. I can declare what is human life worth living and what isn't." It is like you are your own magisterium and supreme court together. The modern claim, in its core, is that the human mind is totally superior to matter, which, without you knowing it I assume, is Gnosis reloaded. You may call it relativism, or nothing, because fewer and fewer people care anymore about the most important fundament of civilization, which is philosophy. Underestimating philosophy is the core fallacy of any contemporary movement, like the brights. We are killing philosophy by denying an objective truth. And by killing philosophy, trying to have it replaced by natural sciences, we are killing our civilization. Relativism is ignoring the fact that we, as a whole mankind, or as a single human being, actually do not know enough to judge one topics like life or death. And that's why we have to be very careful even considering ending someone's life. To cut it short: Heliocentrism has been replaced by egocentrism. I beg you to learn anything you can get regarding philosophy. Call me fatalistic or reactionary, but otherwise we are doomed. And the point you're trying to make against euthanasia is what exactly? Christian philosophy that claims that all life is sacred? And what is your argument for mankind not knowing enough to judge about life or death? | ||
xM(Z
Romania5268 Posts
On July 03 2015 04:33 Stratos_speAr wrote: So your opinion that we should keep someone alive that wants to die trumps that person's own experiences? Those same experiences that you just said you cannot possibly quantify or otherwise understand? that's pretty self-evident to me - when one doesn't have enough evidence, one doesn't sentence another to death-row. that being said, if she wants to die, she is free to kill herself. i'm not trumping her experiences. i am not forcing her to live. @Gzerble - this: People with it aren't unaware that what they're feeling isn't rational. Some of them are extremely clever. But they just can't cope with the world. the double negative at the beginning = people with depression are aware that what they're feeling isn't irrational.and this: So, when a doctor says that the worst suffering he's seen is a woman in her moment of clarity realizing ... are mutually exclusive. or, one talks about depression and the other about schizophrenia. point being - you use a schizophrenic episode in your conclusion, to excuse the thoughts/actions of depressive patients. | ||
adwodon
United Kingdom592 Posts
If a person can be evaluated by a medical professional to be of sound enough mind to make the decision to die then they should be able to do that, even if the reason is simply they are done with life and want it to end on a high note. I have a hard time seeing why anyone would oppose that, we live in an individualistic society and we respect the rights of individuals. If I want to die I can attempt this on my own, potentially messing it up or causing problems for other people with a messy death, this is costly both financially and emotionally, imagine the driver who hits someone attempting suicide, the man who has to fish a bridge jumper out of a river, the people who are responsible for cleaning the property of someone who slit their wrists, or even the medical staff who have to deal with a failed attempt. If there was a service to allow someone to do this legally, not only could you hopefully intercept more people to prevent suicide, but you could determine if their desire to end their life was legitimate and do so in a clean way, sorting out all issues before and giving the person the respect they deserve. The question really boils down to whether or not you can effectively do that with mental illness but personally I do not think forcing someone to live just because they might one day enjoy life is compassionate, this girl had been suffering for over a decade, it wasn't some sort of brief episode. If you want to apply philosophy here why not take a utilitarian approach, would allowing people to die in this situation lead to an increase or decrease in overall happiness. Would ending the long term suffering of a few justify the loss of the even smaller few who may well recover and live a happy life? We live in a society that values the individual and their rights, this is a murky approach as psychological research increasingly shows us we aren't beings with true 'free will' and our thoughts are easily influenced but we have to draw a line somewhere and if a person is not in the state of acute mental illness (noting the difference between acute and chronic here) then they should be allowed to enter a process which could legally end their life if other avenues fail to convince them otherwise and a professional is willing to perform the procedure. I think there is a good argument that from a utilitarian standpoint this would be beneficial for both the individual and society. | ||
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9024 Posts
On July 03 2015 19:34 adwodon wrote: We honestly need to re-evaluate our view on death, its going to happen to us all eventually. you want to apply philosophy here why not take a utilitarian approach, would allowing people to die in this situation lead to an increase or decrease in overall happiness. Would ending the long term suffering of a few justify the loss of the even smaller few who may well recover and live a happy life? We live in a society that values the individual and their rights, this is a murky approach as psychological research increasingly shows us we aren't beings with true 'free will' and our thoughts are easily influenced but we have to draw a line somewhere and if a person is not in the state of acute mental illness (noting the difference between acute and chronic here) then they should be allowed to enter a process which could legally end their life if other avenues fail to convince them otherwise and a professional is willing to perform the procedure. I think there is a good argument that from a utilitarian standpoint this would be beneficial for both the individual and society. Its a really difficult question. I have no doubt that we do need to re-evaluate how we judge human life and death. The preservation of life at all costs is highly outdated IMO and based on religious ideals rather than any relevant philosophy. At the same time, anyone with any experience of the mental health sector will tell you countless stories of people who were suicidal and not only recovered, but went on to make it clear that they are glad they never succeeded in killing themselves. When a doctor decides that someone is of sound enough mind to be able to make a decision like that, it isn't a simple decision and is never clear cut. Even the slightest doubt about someone's state of mind means that they might want to change their mind in the future, which casts doubt on something as final as death. So although we do need to re-evaluate our attitude to death, we still have to respect its seriousness and finality. | ||
Gzerble
82 Posts
@Gzerble - this: the double negative at the beginning = people with depression are aware that what they're feeling isn't irrational. are mutually exclusive. or, one talks about depression and the other about schizophrenia. point being - you use a schizophrenic episode in your conclusion, to excuse the thoughts/actions of depressive patients. Way to ignore the content. Look, in case you are unwilling to accept the fact that clinical depression is a serious illness that my brother put up there with schizophrenia and ahead of cancer in the list of the worst things he has seen as a doctor, then you have nothing to add to this conversation. I added my two cents about an anecdote that convinced me that mental illness is no less real than physical ones. You are nitpicking because you don't like the conclusion. Fair enough. Just don't be a douche about it. I am saying that both of the (incurable, debilitating) diseases I mentioned have symptoms which fall under "extreme and chronic suffering" which won't allow them to live out their life. In both cases, there is solid rationalization behind allowing the extreme cases euthanasia. They try to kill themselves, but they live in the most suicide proof environments out there and are put on a ton of drugs. Some people have milder versions of the examples I'm giving, but saying that all of them are free to kill themselves if they want to is ignoring the fact that they can't, and even if they could, the same could be said about patients who have other diseases. If you are against euthanasia in general, then fair enough. Pro-life is not my ideology. For me, this is about allowing very sick people a legal way to control their own destiny in the only way they can, and die with some dignity. | ||
| ||