T
Scarecrow Akhbar said:And the answer's a "No".
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?
The Real McCoy said:Also, if you choose illegal then who do you think should pay the bills to keep that person alive?
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..........
The Real McCoy said:I gotta ask: what was the question?
hiker said: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.
hiker said: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?
hiker said:How do we know this net won't drop over those whom are simply depressed or in need of mental help?
hiker said: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.
FinnMacCool said:Yeah see what Rush has to say on the subject and then get back to us :doh :lol: :roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?