Euthanasia (1 Viewer)

[The Real McCoy]

I personally believe it should be legal. Regardless of whatever ethical/moral issues stem from euthanasia, I don't think it's any of the government's business to control what people choose to do with their lives, providing that it doesn't infringe on the rights of another. If a terminally ill patient wants to die, they should be able to. So what does everyone think: should it be legal or illegal?

Also, if you choose illegal then who do you think should pay the bills to keep that person alive?

 

[Hornburger]

I say legal when the patient is terminally ill. What would be the point of keeping the patient alive? All it does is waste money. It’s the patient’s choice.

 

[Kandahar]

Legal under certain circumstances. But I don't support assisted-suicide-on-demand.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I certainly think that I should be able to make such a decision for myself if chose to make it. I do have qulams about some of the other folks though.

However, freedom always & necessarily means the freedom to screw up.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

And the answer's a "No".

At least it's a no if you differentiate between "doctor assisted suicide" and "put the poor bastard out of his misery".

If the patient requests termination, it's a form of suicide, and it's okay, assuming the patient is competent to make the request. I classify so-called "living wills" as sufficient proof of intent to speak for incapacitated patients.

If he's not making the request, it's more like shooting the horse with the broken toenail, and I'm not comfortable giving the state that kind of power.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Aren't there people in this world whose religion condones suicide?

 

[The Real McCoy]

And the answer's a "No".

I gotta ask: what was the question?

 

[hiker]

I personally believe it should be legal. Regardless of whatever ethical/moral issues stem from euthanasia, I don't think it's any of the government's business to control what people choose to do with their lives, providing that it doesn't infringe on the rights of another. If a terminally ill patient wants to die, they should be able to. So what does everyone think: should it be legal or illegal?

I bolded the part of you paragraph that I have the issue with. For one thing, the terminally ill is a pretty wide open definition. Cancer patients can be terminally ill, they can also recover in many cases. HIV infection causes a terminal illness, yet medication can keep you alive and in decent health for who knows how long (Magic Johnson, for instance) It is truly a broadly defined designation, and not always an accurate diagnosis. So what happens when an HMO or insurer decides to provide a client with information about legal euthenasia as an alternative to a protracted bout with an illness with the odds of survival being low? What happens if the government decides to make cuts in medicaid and tells people they can't afford to put them through months of chemotherapy? With euthenasia possibly being available as a low-cost alternative under coverage, is that not the government deciding who lives or dies? How do we know this net won't drop over those whom are simply depressed or in need of mental help?

A couple more points: Doctors take an oath to heal the sick and do no harm. This does not work, it is completely the opposite of what a doctor's purpose is. And of course, those that wish to die will find a way. Unless you can do it to yourself, you don't really want to give up. People of all different level of abilities have always found a way to commit suicide, if they wanted it bad enough. In no way should anyone outside of one's own self be an influence on that decision. Especially not a doctor or insurer or a gov't agency.

Also, if you choose illegal then who do you think should pay the bills to keep that person alive?

This was the question that angered me. You can't put a price on life. Let me show you what it feels like when somebody tries: what if I decided that it costs me too much money in taxes to keep you alive? I don't know you, what does it mean to me if you live or die? If it makes you angry to read those questions, think of how it feels for a cancer patient to open this thread and see you pointing out how his life isn't worth any more of your tax money.

I just don't see how anybody (and I make a presumption about your politics here) can ever get upset because Republicans are supposedly for making the divide wider between the rich and the poor with things like cuts in medicare and reforming welfare. And yet, can then look at the most helpless among us, whom also may need the most help, and basically say screw you, you're not worth any more of my tax money because you'll end up dead anyway.

But I didn't mean that as a personal attack. I was just incensed at some of the text of your post. I would hope you weren't being deliberately callous.

 

[Navy Pride]

This is a tough one..Much more difficult to decide then Abortion or the Death Penalty........

On the one hand I am pro life and believe all innocent life is precious......On the other hand I believe that a person if they see fit and are of sound mind should be able to end their life..........

I will have to think on this one..........

 

[FinnMacCool]

This is a tough one..Much more difficult to decide then Abortion or the Death Penalty........

On the one hand I am pro life and believe all innocent life is precious......On the other hand I believe that a person if they see fit and are of sound mind should be able to end their life..........

I will have to think on this one..........

Yeah see what Rush has to say on the subject and then get back to us :doh :lol: :roll:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I gotta ask: what was the question?

Actually, the answer should be "illegal". IE crashed three times in the course of writing that, so something got lost in the process.

 

[The Real McCoy]

I bolded the part of you paragraph that I have the issue with. For one thing, the terminally ill is a pretty wide open definition. Cancer patients can be terminally ill, they can also recover in many cases. HIV infection causes a terminal illness, yet medication can keep you alive and in decent health for who knows how long (Magic Johnson, for instance) It is truly a broadly defined designation, and not always an accurate diagnosis.

No doubt that's it's tough to draw a line on "terminally ill" and, like all issues, it's not as simple as black and white.. there's many shades of grey.

So what happens when an HMO or insurer decides to provide a client with information about legal euthenasia as an alternative to a protracted bout with an illness with the odds of survival being low? What happens if the government decides to make cuts in medicaid and tells people they can't afford to put them through months of chemotherapy? With euthenasia possibly being available as a low-cost alternative under coverage, is that not the government deciding who lives or dies?

I'm really not too familiar with the details of government health-care plans and what a scenario like that would entail so I really can't say.

How do we know this net won't drop over those whom are simply depressed or in need of mental help?

The patient's family should certainly voice their opinions and have a say in the decision.

This was the question that angered me. You can't put a price on life. Let me show you what it feels like when somebody tries: what if I decided that it costs me too much money in taxes to keep you alive? I don't know you, what does it mean to me if you live or die? If it makes you angry to read those questions, think of how it feels for a cancer patient to open this thread and see you pointing out how his life isn't worth any more of your tax money.

I just don't see how anybody (and I make a presumption about your politics here) can ever get upset because Republicans are supposedly for making the divide wider between the rich and the poor with things like cuts in medicare and reforming welfare. And yet, can then look at the most helpless among us, whom also may need the most help, and basically say screw you, you're not worth any more of my tax money because you'll end up dead anyway.

But I didn't mean that as a personal attack. I was just incensed at some of the text of your post. I would hope you weren't being deliberately callous.

Wasn't trying to be deliberately callous at all.. Just acknowledging the FACT that it does cost $$$ to hospitalize patients, pay doctor's fees, pay life-support costs, etc. This is a reality and someone has to foot the bill so I was simply asking who should be responsible? I say that if the government decides euthanasia should be illegal (which I don't agree with) then it should also be required to pay for the medical costs.

 

[hiker]

Wasn't trying to be deliberately callous at all.. Just acknowledging the FACT that it does cost $$$ to hospitalize patients, pay doctor's fees, pay life-support costs, etc. This is a reality and someone has to foot the bill so I was simply asking who should be responsible? I say that if the government decides euthanasia should be illegal (which I don't agree with) then it should also be required to pay for the medical costs.[/QUOTE]
I maybe should have given some background before I posted in anger. I have a very good friend in the fight for his life against a malignant brain tumor right now, with very little chance of a recovery. But he is getting chemo, and there is always hope. I also have a coworker whose mother was told by a specialist to go home and enjoy her last days, her brain tumor was untreatable. She kept trying until she found a hospital willing to try treating the tumor with radiation. She went into full remission and is still alive several years later. So like I said, it is a broad definition.

 

[Navy Pride]

Yeah see what Rush has to say on the subject and then get back to us :doh :lol: :roll:

You better be careful sonny, your mom is going to make you go to your room......:lol: