Question:
I am amazed that he is still in jail. Someone else can pull your plug, but you can't pull your own. My question is, are you in favor of euthanasia done under proper guidelines?

Choices:
yes
no

 

It is amazing he is still in jail while real murderers, child molesters, and rapists walk free or get out of jail in a short time. I voted Yes, I am in favor of it.

The people that he assisted sought him out -- he didn't go from city to city to find some weak-minded person that he could convince to "leave the party". They were people who were mentally competent that wished their suffering to be over and needed some help.

quote:

Originally posted by edgeview:
Someone else can pull your plug, but you can't pull your own.

Someone else can pull your plug?

Yeah, I'm for it. Or maybe the better way to say it is that I have no reason to be against it.

My grandmother was dying at the age of 96 in a nursing home. As my sister and I sat with her the nurse would come in and give her pain medication and although she was not expected to regain consciousness, she wanted to make sure she was not in pain. When the end neared the nurse took us aside and said she would like to give her a larger dose of the drug to make it faster and easier for her to pass because her breathing was so labored and painful. She explained it would probably bring about her death but she wasn't going to recover and it could make it at least painless. She said this was not an uncommon practice and I know she was a caring person who was very fond of my grandma. We agreed. I hope that someone would do that for me when my time comes. Some may disagree, but my gut and heart told me we did the right thing.

Hmmn...........had this question been posed to me a year or two back, I would have voted YES with full throttle.
However, now....my perspectives have surely changed. Umn, you know what I think, part of the reason the ones FOR euthanasia are basically because they have "no reason to be against it" as Jusork puts it. It is not that strong a stance!
If you ask me, abortion and euthanasia both are murders in a way. Apparently they both seem innocent acts; they seem to be a liberating option. The prospective mother can get back to her life as she saw fit and the patient is saved much suffering and pain, respectively.

But why don't you flinch at the idea of taking the responsibility of snatching away someone's LIFE? We are not God to decide when and when not to allow some one a chance to breathe. Does not sound that idealistic anymore, does it?

And afterall: we are but human. Human nature is erroneous and hides in it jealousies and other such evils. To strike off an elderly in order to obtain shares from their will is an age old plot for mystery-stories. Would you really support the idea of leaving room for something so ruthless to happen? Would that be your preference?

I voted NO.

Pin~Jinx / anarchist bewildered

I voted "yes" because whether or not we are willing to concede that we are not God as pin~jinx reminds us, we are not acting unilaterally in any case of euthanasia I've ever heard of. The objective is merciful release from prolonged and unnecessary suffering. And If we are using heroic measures to keep someone alive when they wouldn't wish to be, aren't we acting just as much God-like, as well as imposing our religious beliefs on others? We euthanise our beloved pets out of love, aren't our humans equally deserving?

quote:

Originally posted by Pin~Jinx:
But why don't you flinch at the idea of taking the responsibility of snatching away someone's LIFE? We are not God to decide when and when not to allow some one a chance to breathe. Does not sound that idealistic anymore, does it?

And afterall: we are but human. Human nature is erroneous and hides in it jealousies and other such evils. To strike off an elderly in order to obtain shares from their will is an age old plot for mystery-stories. Would you really support the idea of leaving room for something so ruthless to happen? Would that be your preference?

The action may be one that has a considerable amount of control over someone else, but it still is an innocent act. Saying I have no reason to be against it essentially means I don't believe in God. Because it's God and the standards in context of him that seems to be the one thing that's really making the issue. And without Him, there really doesn't seem to be any reason to disagree and to believe that death (for ending suffering specifically) is not in our hands. Know what I mean?

As to your second concern, hopefully it would be against the law to kill some old relative off if they weren't suffering and/or didn't consciously except it.

quote:
Originally posted by Pin~Jinx:
But why don't you flinch at the idea of taking the responsibility of snatching away someone's LIFE? We are not God to decide when and when not to allow some one a chance to breathe. Does not sound that idealistic anymore, does it?

And afterall: we are but human. Human nature is erroneous and hides in it jealousies and other such evils. To strike off an elderly in order to obtain shares from their will is an age old plot for mystery-stories. Would you really support the idea of leaving room for something so ruthless to happen? Would that be your preference?

For the record there was absolutely nothing to be gained monetarily or otherwise from my grandmother's death. To watch someone that you have loved your entire life suffer horribly at the end of their life is something I would not wish on my worst enemy.

Having seen too many linger and suffer through a lng term terminal illness with no hope of cure, I have to vote yes.

It depends what you mean by "euthanasia done under proper guidelines". If you asked 50 people what they thought those guidelines should be, you'd probably get 50 different answers.

I agree that in a case like Aceshigh's grandmother it is a merciful action. The hospital staff advised it and took the decision to ask for the relatives' permission. I think that anyone with compassion would feel that way.

To completely legalise euthanasia as they have in other countries is a very different scenario. Provided that there were definite laws, not just guidelines, that protected vulnerable people from grasping realtives, then I would agree to it. But those laws would have to be very stringent. On that proviso I voted yes.

God or not. I would not under any circumstances want my family to see me suffer and die. I would rather die with dignity, and if there is a God, repent at the gates.
I'm totally serious. I am not about to suffer the indignity of dying an agonising cancerous death in front of everybody.
Seriously, thats why I've always wished for a nice quick death around the age of 60.
I mean, I'm 23 now. I like my life, but I feel I've already cheated death.
If I can make it to 60 and die of a heart attack I'll be ok.
As far as Kevorkian, He shouldn't be in prison, let him go out and help people for goodness sakes.