The Real McCoy said:
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.
The Real McCoy said:
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.
