Euthanasia

[Bely]

i was just wondering what everyone thought of this. It's legal over here in Belgium but only under strict circumstances,i believe two doctors need to approve of it and stuff lots of paperwork and stuff so it's not like a person wants to die and then asks a doctor to do that for them and then he just does it. So anywayz,how do you feel about this subject? i think if life really becomes unbearable and there's no cure for your suffering then you should have the right to die in a humane way.

[zealousheart]

I agree. I know there's a lot of opposition to this subject however what if someone is in SO much pain, that they'd be better off dead, and have no hope of recovery? Once they set their affairs in order they should have the right to a painless death. As long as they're physchologically sound when making the decision.

[*Ashlee*]

When the situation is right, Im totally for euthanasia. I think if someone is suffering like that, they dont deserve to spend months or years that way. YOu can feel your body shutting down or being eaten by disease, you cant eat, drink, move...i couldnt imagine

[Ashlyn]

I think a person has the right to die whenever they want to die. If they are incapable, I don't think it is wrong for a physician to end their suffering.

[Kari]

I am for a right to decide.
Okay, I think this is not something that should be taken lightly, but it is a choice everybody should be allowed to make. I know I would rather die in dignity than lead an existence that ties me to a bed, to machines to other people.

[Mya]

I think it's ironic that the only persons that can't legally choose between life and death are the ones that are physically incapable of committing suicide...we have to respect what they want! They have suffered enough, and if they want it to be over, so why not?

[Bely]

I think it's ironic that the only persons that can't legally choose between life and death are the ones that are physically incapable of committing suicide...we have to respect what they want! They have suffered enough, and if they want it to be over, so why not?

exactly! it's like with that whole terri shiavo thing,that woman was chained to her bed and machines for like 15 years and the only reason why her parents wanted to keep her "alive" was because she could blink! that's just not a humane "life" to have and i understand where her parents are coming from but sometimes you just gotta let it go,she deserved to die with dignity,instead they cut off her food for a number of days,in that case euthanasia would've been much better.

[Webeh]

I have to admit that I'm personally on the fence here.

On one side:

- People should have a choice in how they would like to live or not live their life. If they live in extreme pain, the person should be able to choose to end the suffering. Living as an unmoving vegetable is not an enjoyable one.
- There are probably circumstances where a person living in this position could easily be used due to their physical vulnerability.
- There's an issue of pride here. Some people would like to live and die in dignity. If you are forced to live this way, you may interpret this as a loss of dignity. Schiavo's situation was turned into an awful media circus. If I had any sort of power in this situation, I would have forced a media blackout. No cameras allowed in the hospital and no cameras allowed in the courtroom. Schiavo deserved a lot more privacy than she got. (This really fits in both argument categories, but I didn't want to repeat myself later below.)

On the other side:

- People should be able to choose how they live. This is where this arguement gets confusing. When there's all these court battles to remove a food/breathing tube, the choice is always taken away from the patient. He or she has absolutely no say in the matter. Not really. So, how do we know what he or she really thinks? (This argument really falls under both sides of this issue. I just felt like putting it here.)
- The idea of Euthanasia is sort of similar to the ideas behind test tube babies. By saying it's okay to end this person's life, your essentially demeaning the worth of this life because of it's less than perfect status. People have controversially compared this act to the acts that Hitler has committed against non-Aryans. This is a view most disabled-rights group holds.
- This leaves open the opportunity for malicious people to play god.

You can probably see why I have a difficulty in picking a clear stance here. Both sides have arguments involving the issues of choice and respect. I strongly believe in a person's right to choose, but this is just simply not an option in this circumstance. So, I don't know.

However, I do know that if anyone ever creates a way to give the patient a significant rational input in this decision, I'd automatically side with what he or she wants. ("Rational" as in the legal sense, not in the "is this smart or not?" sense.) What really matters here is the choice of the person of interest, no one else's.

[Heather]

Im for euthanasia.

I think this is where Living Wills come into play, and Im glad I had one written when I was 21.

But Terry Schiavo wasnt an open and shut case.

[Webeh]

Definitely not an open/shut case. I wish Terry had a living will. (Did she have one?) Then this whole thing could have been settled less spectacularly.

[Bely]

Im for euthanasia.

I think this is where Living Wills come into play, and Im glad I had one written when I was 21.

But Terry Schiavo wasnt an open and shut case.


ok,what i got from all the news coverage was that she was on machines for 15 years and that she couldn't function much,like talking or whatever,like i said before,it was just blinking. So are there more stuff that i don't know? And could you explain to me why it's not an open and shut case? oh and also,what are living wills? isn't it like an ordinary will where you say who gets what after you die?

[*Ashlee*]

Well Terry couldnt speak for herself. She couldnt make any decisions. It was a battle between her husband, who had moved on, and her parents. She had doctors saying she had no hope and doctors saying she had a chance. She would show small signs of hope like she wasnt as far gone as they thought. It wasnt simple by any means.

[Heather]

Definitely not an open/shut case. I wish Terry had a living will. (Did she have one?) Then this whole thing could have been settled less spectacularly.

I agree. I always thought it was a tragedy that she never had a living will.

And a living will is for medical purposes. Basically, it states what you're wishes are as far as medical care. For instance, mine is a DNR, (do not resucitate). Basically, if Im on life support, with no chance of coming out of it, even if my family wants to keep me on machines, they cant, because I already have a legal document saying that that is not what I want.

It protects the patient.

[danyjoncew]

I'm a pro. It ain't legal here in Brazil.

[Bely]

I agree. I always thought it was a tragedy that she never had a living will.

And a living will is for medical purposes. Basically, it states what you're wishes are as far as medical care. For instance, mine is a DNR, (do not resucitate). Basically, if Im on life support, with no chance of coming out of it, even if my family wants to keep me on machines, they cant, because I already have a legal document saying that that is not what I want.

It protects the patient.


wow! i think i saw that on E.R. it's pretty hard for the families but good for the patient. I wonder if they have that over here too..might check it,ya never know what's gonna happen ya know.

And as for terry,i thought it was established that there really wasn't any hope? i mean the woman had been on machines for the past 15 years. That's also imo way too long and i also wonder what can be categorized as signs of life? and if those signs promise for a humane life.

And yeah,i agree,it's sad that terry didn't have a living will,things would have been alot easier for everyone.

And also back to terry,after she died,they did an autopsy (sp?) and they found that her brains shrunk,like they were half the size of what it should be.

[jillian]

i'm okay with it but only if the final descision maker is the person that is euthanised. i don't believe in letting the family members decided even if the person in question has "compromised" mental facilities or whatever.