[WhatsHisFace]

(Original post by .Scout.)
Uh, no. I don't fully support euthanasia but that doesn't mean that I'm void of all compassion.
Whilst I agree that we have the right to our own bodies and therefore should be able to decide if we want to live or not I think that there are too many potential issues surrounding it.
(cut down for length)

All of your points I believe wouldn't be an issue if it were legal. There would have to be some kind of previous consent for people who aren't mentally fit to make the decision themselves. Something as important as someone's life wouldn't come down to a he said/ she said type scenario, there would have to be some sort of legal document telling doctors that it is ok to terminate a patient if they aren't likely to recover from whatever illness they have. As for the argument that the elderly would feel like a burden, I believe that that is more of a social issue than a legal issue. If someone feels that their grandmother is a burden to them because she's still alive will believe that whether or not euthanasia is an option.

(Original post by RAPSTER)
so true if an dog was in pain and could hardly walk then they would be put down a human we make them suffer, strong pain killers make the patient 'comfortable' but knock them out completely and suppress their breathing etc and bad side effects that dont help.

But how's big business gunna make capital off of you if you're dead?

(Original post by Zorgotron)
I think that one of the issues that is generally overlooked is how euthanasia would affect the general culture of the society.

By legalizing euthanasia, we will create a society that has approved assisted suicide and it sends a very clear message to those that can't take care of themselves and/or have become completely unproductive and a burden to society.

I simply fear that the elderly and all the other people that can't take care of themselves will be pressured into euthanasia as being alive at the expense of others could be seen as severe selfishness - a duty to die.

There are other arguments as well, but generally I can't support something that cheapens and trivializes the value of human life.

While you make a good point, I'm going to have to disagree with you. It wouldn't trivialize the value of human life, it would show that we understand that life is finite, which is something our culture largely wants to ignore. A MAJOR component of the worlds exploding population isn't because of birth rates; per capita they have plummeted since the start of the industrial age. It is because our life expectancy has soared in recent years. By extending our life expectancy we have essentially forfeited our lives to being dependent on others at some point. The longer this trend continues, the more the next generation will have to live to serve the needs of the last. I'm not going to claim to know how to solve this issue, I guess the point of what I'm saying is that I believe that people rejecting their own mortality is more of a current issue than being apathetic towards it (at least in our own countries).

Another way to look at it: Don't you think a cancer/ Alzheimer's patient would be able to better cope and live a more productive life if they knew that if things got too intense for them that they could end their suffering prematurely? I know that I wouldn't want to suffer the end stages of Alzheimer's, it sounds like pure hell.

(Original post by Frey)
You can't make black and white on this topic, it's the same with abortion.
If you have a guy with a horrific disease which makes him live a miserable life, and HE obviously wants to end it, that's fine.
If you have some poor old guy, who is a bit sick, and feels a bit of a burden on his family, or his family push him a certain way because they want their inheritence money, then it's a different story.
Every case should be examined by a number of doctors and every case be considered very carefully individually.
It's unfair and dangerous to blanket one way or the other.

Completely agree. I believe that unless it's a open-shut case as to if they would qualify for euthanasia, that a psychologist would have to be required to participate in the situation.

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by miser)
Wow, support for euthanasia seems to be a lot more positive than I thought it would be.

We're a much younger and of a much more liberal persuasion than our older and generally more conservative counterparts in the wider public

[lucaf]

assuming we are talking voluntary euthanasia, I strongly support it. if somebody is living in agony with no chance of improvement, why should we force them to suffer? nobody gains from it. people often say that it is selfish and they should think about how it will effect their loved ones, but surely it is more selfish for their loved ones to want them to stay with them despite living in misery? if I were terminally ill, I can certainly see the appeal of dying on my own terms at a time of my choosing.

[With an Accent]

(Original post by hpcp)
Do you support euthanasia or do you oppose euthanasia?
Thanks for any responses
sorry the last option's supposed to be strongly oppose :P

For me, it's all in the definition.

I'm against euthanasia, but 100% for assisted suicide. People can be helped to kill themselves, such as happens at Dignitas, in which case it's always their decision. Somebody else pulling the plug is completely unnecessary, even very ill patients can do something as simple as pushing a button. I believe that euthanasia (somebody else killing them) would be too hard to control legally - how would one determine when it was murder? Not to mention the psychological effects for the person doing the action.

I'm also against passive euthanasia, when they're unconscious. People have woken up from comas when the odds were completely against them. I don't pay taxes yet, but when I do I won't have a problem paying for those with slim chances to be kept alive on the off chance.

My grey area is when they're suffering hugely but unable to communicate their wishes. This would only affect a very small number of people, but in this instance without a 'living will' how would you know that they'd want to die? But wouldn't they want the suffering to end? It's tough, and I don't know what to think about this case.

[Zorgotron]

(Original post by WhatsHisFace)
While you make a good point, I'm going to have to disagree with you. It wouldn't trivialize the value of human life, it would show that we understand that life is finite, which is something our culture largely wants to ignore. A MAJOR component of the worlds exploding population isn't because of birth rates; per capita they have plummeted since the start of the industrial age. It is because our life expectancy has soared in recent years. By extending our life expectancy we have essentially forfeited our lives to being dependent on others at some point. The longer this trend continues, the more the next generation will have to live to serve the needs of the last. I'm not going to claim to know how to solve this issue, I guess the point of what I'm saying is that I believe that people rejecting their own mortality is more of a current issue than being apathetic towards it (at least in our own countries).

Another way to look at it: Don't you think a cancer/ Alzheimer's patient would be able to better cope and live a more productive life if they knew that if things got too intense for them that they could end their suffering prematurely? I know that I wouldn't want to suffer the end stages of Alzheimer's, it sounds like pure hell.

The thing with overpopulation is very ambiguous. As you said, we should own up to our finite lives - If we have to face our mortality, then wouldn't it be better to simply stop financing medical research that's conducted for the purpose of extending our lifespan? Should we not see the futility of extending a life that will inevitably end anyway? To me it sounds much more ethical than actually resorting to killing people for the sake of quelling the population growth.

My point is that nobody actually lives with the mindset that they will eventually die. If I go to a vagrant or a disabled person and say that I will kill them and end their miserable existence, they wouldn't want that because as a general rule, people will always want to live no matter how bad it gets.

While it may seem reasonable to let people die when they want, the cultural implication will be tremendous and they will be very tragic.

And on your alzheimer example - how are we ever supposed to learn about such diseases and search for cures if we euthanaize all the victims of this disease. Well, since you argued for overpopulation I guess euthanasia should quell it + it's more beneficial to let some diseases continue rampaging as every little bit helps against overpopulation.

[buchanan700]

I support it with the proper safeguards in place - making sure they were mentally stable etc.
Why should someone be made to suffer?

[beepbeeprichie]

Few people are so pro voluntary euthanasia as I am.

[WhatsHisFace]

(Original post by Zorgotron)
The thing with overpopulation is very ambiguous. As you said, we should own up to our finite lives - If we have to face our mortality, then wouldn't it be better to simply stop financing medical research that's conducted for the purpose of extending our lifespan? Should we not see the futility of extending a life that will inevitably end anyway? To me it sounds much more ethical than actually resorting to killing people for the sake of quelling the population growth.

My point is that nobody actually lives with the mindset that they will eventually die. If I go to a vagrant or a disabled person and say that I will kill them and end their miserable existence, they wouldn't want that because as a general rule, people will always want to live no matter how bad it gets.

While it may seem reasonable to let people die when they want, the cultural implication will be tremendous and they will be very tragic.

And on your alzheimer example - how are we ever supposed to learn about such diseases and search for cures if we euthanaize all the victims of this disease. Well, since you argued for overpopulation I guess euthanasia should quell it + it's more beneficial to let some diseases continue rampaging as every little bit helps against overpopulation.

Not necessarily- there are plenty of people who die before they become elderly. Apart from a few outliers, most diseases that the elderly worry about also applies to the general population. In fact I'm strongly considering a career somewhere in health care/ life sciences. And yes you can make the point that the will to live is innate, but it isn't exactly everlasting. I've had multiple relatives who in their later years were merely waiting to die- the sooner makes no difference. In my eyes, it would be more immoral to deny them that.

Also, please know that I only wish for voluntary euthanasia to be legalized. Some form of consent would have to be given even if they were unable to rationally make the decision when it comes. So I don't wish for everyone to undergo assisted suicide once the option comes available, the same way I don't wish for everyone to go out and start shooting up heroin even though I'm all for drug legalization. So there will still be plenty of hopeful volunteers for Alzheimer's research. And even in the hypothetical scenario that everyone in the late stages of Alzheimer's did commit AS, it wouldn't affect research on preventing the disease, as to my knowledge the damage that it causes is irreversible. But that's neither here nor there.

[x[Aa$iyah]x]

(Original post by PinkyPurply)
How can you not support it?

Would you rather watch someone live their final days in agony or see someone slip away with peace and dignity.

I dont support it because it goes against my religion.....so im not in favour of it.....but if someone else is happy to go ahead with is thats fine.....but if any of my family or freinds requested it i wouldn't support it....hell they wouldnt even say something like that in the first place

[PinkyPurply]

(Original post by x[Aa$iyah]x)
I dont support it because it goes against my religion.....so im not in favour of it.....but if someone else is happy to go ahead with is thats fine.....but if any of my family or freinds requested it i wouldn't support it....hell they wouldnt even say something like that in the first place

Typical

[amyshamblesxx]

I support, as long as it's done the proper way in facilities with counselling etc.

[Harolinho]

The government doesn't own your life, they shouldn't be able to force you to live against your will. They have no jurisdiction in life and death. I have seen very few (if any), vaguely evocative arguments to justify euthanasia being illegal.

The main arguments people seem to use are psuedo-moral slime from outdated religious vernacular. Adhering, as always - to the lowest common denominator.

Please somebody counter me with some audibly interesting argument

[Schlegel]

Support by method of stopping medication, not giving lethal matters...

[Teatania]

I don't know. I support the notion that a person has a right over their own life but I wouldn't want to cheapen that life with a get out clause. Assisted suicide should be, at the very least legalised (I'm not sure about euthanasia), but strictly monitored so it cannot be abused or taken for granted. If a person is mortally ill and wishes for their life to end and is willing to do the act themselves, being able to do so in their own home is very little to ask. It being illegal makes criminals out of these unfortunate individuals and their loved ones which is ridiculous.

[Teatania]

(Original post by Schlegel)
Support by method of stopping medication, not giving lethal matters...

That may result in a natural death but isn't the purpose of euthanasia to supply a "mercy killing"? Withdrawing medication would be torturous.

[Kiss]

Yes

[Schlegel]

(Original post by Teatania)
That may result in a natural death but isn't the purpose of euthanasia to supply a "mercy killing"? Withdrawing medication would be torturous.

Well it depends on whether you view it consequentially. Yes it will possibly be tortuous in consequence but the point is no killing has been committed so is ethical in principle. I cannot view killing under any circumstance justified, sorry, no matter how 'merciful' it is. That the patient has a right to die does not mean the doctor has a right to kill.

[TomJS]

Yes.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[No Man]

(Original post by geetar)
Strongly support. I think it is the height of arrogance and selfishness to oppose it.

This.

[Sheep]

(Original post by x[Aa$iyah]x)
i dont support it...doesnt mean i dont have any compassion

more likely just ignorance