• right now

  Adding your comment:
• 
  bob2314
  July 3, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  can extending life itself in some cases be concidered a harm?
• Boudica
  July 4, 2006
  Edit | Reply

  Sometimes..

  doing harm is keeping someone alive. If someone is dying a horrible death I feel it should be every doctors duty to let them go. In the past, some doctors would be given a weapon to kill patients that couldn't be helped. Either because they couldn't spare the time and hands to treat the person or the person just couldn't be saved. So they would do the human thing to do, let them go.

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

• right now

  Adding your comment:
• 
  Weydon
  June 30, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  LOL I'm not sure I TOTALLY agree. Reducing our population of suicidals? haha Euthanasia is more of ASSISTED suicide for people horribly ill or injured, with nothing but a painful demise in their (near) future. Like when a cowboy shoots his horse! (Jokes are always appropriate when talking about horrible situtations people actually have to deal with). Without assistance, and being able to use it on online orders for anything from someone with an actual terminal illness to someone who just got dumped, is not really euthanasia. I DO agree that actual euthanasia should be allowed.
• Cherub
  June 30, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  "Euthanasia is more of ASSISTED suicide for people horribly ill or injured, with nothing but a painful demise in their (near) future." But isn't depression a horrible illness? And isn't suicide by some gentler means better for society as a whole than the alternatives that some feel inclined to seek? What would you rather find, a blood smeared corpse, a man on a rope, or a body in a room with a few empty roofie-coladas? It's a cleaner method than the sloppy d.i.y. stuff we hear of so often. Also, we won't have to worry about people ending up permanently paralyzed or any of that, from ill-thought out suicide attempts.
• 
  Weydon
  July 1, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  "But isn’t depression a horrible illness? " No. Severe depression is (or at least can be) an illness we should sympathize with, but cannot even compare to someone with an incurable and much more painful disease or injury. On top physical pain, they have imminent death in their future and nothing good about the little time left to DEPRESS them as well. Depression can be treated. "And isn’t suicide by some gentler means better for society as a whole than the alternatives that some feel inclined to seek? What would you rather find, a blood smeared corpse, a man on a rope, or a body in a room with a few empty roofie-coladas?" Making "euthanasia" readily available will not make all suicidal people go "Ohh...So I DON'T have to shoot myself?". There are already plenty of ways to peacefully off yourself. Whether you sell pills for the purpose of suicide or not, some people will continue to do things messy and some people will continue to do it "nicer". "Also, we won’t have to worry about people ending up permanently paralyzed or any of that" That's what euthanasia is for. Though technically even there you could argue it's just depression and they could be treated and rehabilitated into enjoying their lives in spite of their disability. Those who resort (or want to resort) to euthanasia typically have no chance of recovery.
• Cherub
  July 3, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  "Making “euthanasia” readily available will not make all suicidal people go “Ohh…So I DON’T have to shoot myself?”. There are already plenty of ways to peacefully off yourself. Whether you sell pills for the purpose of suicide or not, some people will continue to do things messy and some people will continue to do it “nicer”." Some people will continue to do all sorts of nasty things when the alternatives are offered them. Like, for example...murder. Some guy's fed up with his wife. He COULD divorce her and move away, and never deal with her again, but instead he beats her to death and burns the corpse. Alternatives will never cure any social problem, they just give options for the sensible.
• 
  Weydon
  July 4, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  Exactly. And the sensible already are aware that you don't have to shoot your brains out in the middle of a school playground. There are plenty of peaceful ways to commit suicide. Making things things you can order to commit suicide is pretty bad. It's like a business that profiting on unstable people as well as those that are horribly terminal and wish to end their suffering. Many suicidal people have other ways out, can start over, start new lives, continue in their own lives with a fresh outlook. Over-the-counter-"euthanasia" is a stupid idea. Circumstances are needed for first, and you can't decide who's really sick and who's a 14 year old girl that just got dumped and failed her math midterm with an online order.

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

• right now

  Adding your comment:
• Cherub
  July 5, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  It's not mercy "killing". It's mercy suicide. Nobody is killing anyone who wants to live, only people who are in extreme pain, and have no hope or desire to convalesce. I don't believe in mercy killing either. Euthenasia is for the willing.
• jotokai
  July 30, 2006
  Edit | Reply

  good death

  Eu=good thanasia= +/- death The question should be, is there such a thing as good death? And who decides which is which? There is such a thing as "good death." Or at least, better death. When you can't stop death you should control it. This is the purpose behind true euthanasia. It can easily be abused, and should be regulated; still it is just as destructive to unnecessarily prolong the death process. We need to develop careful procedures for authorizing euthanasia in order to prevent our government from sanctioning murder- to protect those who, though deathly ill, wish to cling to each moment of life. This, to me, is the only real question remaining: How can we ease the transition of those suffering souls while still showing our reverence for life?

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free