Are you for or against euthanasia?

Scroll to see replies

I can't think of a secular argument against it

Sanctity of life is not exclusively a religious idea.

But otherwise there are plenty. In the US and in Europe already we have seen what happens when this bridge is crssed - google it. One guy in the US had a letter telling him that while cancer treatment was too expensive, euthansia would be offered for free.

Reply 21

United1892

Original post by Geek_shay

So I'm doing a paired discussion in English,about euthanasia and I'm agains it.
So can anyone give me any points that are against and what would the counter arguments be ...

1. Slippery slope, situation in Netherlands where doctors warn it is "out of control"
2. Risk of terminally ill people feeling pressured to end their life early.
3. Making palliative care better is a much better way of helping people suffering.
4. Regulating it would be difficult and we could in effect legalise murder.

Reply 22

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by Geek_shay

. even if your an atheist ,studies actually shown that euthanasias patients actually regret agreeing to it ,due to it being more painful then the pain that they are already in.

Do you even think through the garbage that you post?

Reply 23

username1560589

Original post by Geek_shay

. even if your an atheist ,studies actually shown that euthanasias patients actually regret agreeing to it ,due to it being more painful then the pain that they are already in.

WTF? Did they have to fill in a questionnaire afterwards or was it based on interviews?

Reply 24

yasaminO_o

You also have the slippery slope and guilt arguments for against

Personally, I agree with euthanasia in principle, but I don't know if I could ever bring myself to end someone's life in practise

Reply 25

Tiger Rag

I voted yes, because in most situations I would say yes. However:
- as others have said, you have people who aren't mentally able to make these decisions
- you have the issue of proving they wanted to die (as opposed to family wanting them to die and wanting their money)

But we allow animals to die and I think it's cruel that we allow humans to live. You then have some humans who end up dying a very slow and painful death.

I don't think there's an easy answer tbh. I think the option should be there. But you've got people who need help to die in a peaceful way and well, that's classed as murder, isn't it?

Reply 26

ceryss

Original post by Geek_shay

. even if your an atheist ,studies actually shown that euthanasias patients actually regret agreeing to it ,due to it being more painful then the pain that they are already in.

Wouldn't use this argument in your debate

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 27

Everglow

Original post by Geek_shay

. even if your an atheist ,studies actually shown that euthanasias patients actually regret agreeing to it ,due to it being more painful then the pain that they are already in.

This post is entertainment gold. Kudos to you, my friend. Kudos. :lol:

Reply 28

Clearing and Applications Advisor

Original post by Angry cucumber

I can't think of a secular argument against it

How about the fact that 75% of doctors are opposed and would refuse to participate - and this percentage is much higher for doctors working in end of life care (over 90%) and so any change in the law risks losing some of the most experience professionals from an already underfunded and resourced are.

And this is for Assisted Dying *not* euthanasia. http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/about/faqs/

The law already allows for the withdrawal of treatment http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34872793 it just also requires that deaths that may be assisted suicides are *investigated* (which generally takes place with a lot of compassion for those involved).

Reply 29

hellodave5

Voted yes.
I would want the option to kill myself, if I was in such a bad state as to have not a glimmer at any quality of life.
The only argument I can think of realistically is that of the slippery slope. This can surely be countermeasured by extremely tight regulation.

Reply 30

Dabo_26

we should all have to right to die; if our quality of life is so poor that life becomes a burden, that is wrong. No one should suffer unnecessarily.

Reply 31

KimKallstrom

I for one fully support the existence of young people in Asia. You nay sayers bow your heads in shame

Reply 32

IBIB

I think its good to have the debate, but i'd worry about older people feeling pressured by their families and so on to do it.

Reply 33

Black Rose

Original post by Geek_shay

So I'm doing a paired discussion in English,about euthanasia and I'm agains it.
So can anyone give me any points that are against and what would the counter arguments be ...

I had to do something similar when I was in school and used this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml

Also, if you wanted study help, probably should have posted there. :tongue:

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 34

illegaltobepoor

I am against Euthanasia because I don't want to be forced to sign a signature for my own destruction. Don't want to be made into a lamp shade.

Reply 35

driftawaay

I am glad this poll is overwhelmingly a yes vote.

Reply 36

username1148663

Original post by Geek_shay

So I'm doing a paired discussion in English,about euthanasia and I'm agains it.
So can anyone give me any points that are against and what would the counter arguments be ...

For.

A person owns their own life and should have the right to end it if they are of sound mind.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 37

Clearing and Applications Advisor

Original post by Geek_shay

So I'm doing a paired discussion in English,about euthanasia and I'm agains it.
So can anyone give me any points that are against and what would the counter arguments be ...

This should be the easiest discussion to win.

Euthanasia is not assisted suicide. Euthanasia does not require any form of consent from the person being killed. Look up the definition and the actions of Harold Shipman.
Very few people are in favour of euthanising humans the way we do pets because they recognise the importance of informed consent.

Reply 38

username944192

Original post by PQ

I don't think you've understood the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Euthanasia is when a doctor would end your life usually to stop your suffering. That doesn't mean you can't consent to it. Assisted suicide is when someone helps you to end your own life, usually a clinician - this is usually called PAS (physician assisted suicide) and is the model used in America. So the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide hinges on WHO is doing the ending of life.

Euthanasia that does not require any consent would be either be involuntary or non-voluntary euthanasia. Non-voluntary euthanasia is where someone is unable to consent e.g. those in a coma or PVS. Involuntary is where a person's life is ended when they have either not consented to it or given no indication that they wanted it so this category mostly aligns with the Shipman saga, and would generally be classified as murder. But, saying 'euthanasia doesn't require consent' is incorrect because there are different categories of euthanasia. The bill for legalising euthanasia that was debated in the Commons in September involved two clinicians signing off the patient e.g. checking that they were competent to consent.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 39

username944192

Original post by PQ

Doctors who don't want to participate wouldn't have to - we can't, and wouldn't, force them to do this. But there are doctors who would do it. On my MA in Medical Ethics and Law there are plenty of doctors and nurses who are for euthanasia and would help those suffering if they needed to. No clinician who felt uncomfortable with it would have to do this and we would certainly not 'lose' them, they would continue their job and when the situation arose someone else would take over.

Also worth pointing out that the poll in question was carried out on 2003 so it's impossible to say whether this still holds true now. It also doesn't say where or which group of doctors this poll was carried out on - a simple google search for that particular poll brings up the Christian Medical Fellowship for me, which if true, is obvious that most religious doctors will not want to take part? That doesn't mean that lots of secular doctors wouldn't. It's the kind of scaremongering you see from the Daily Mail '99% of people think immigrants are taking all our jobs!!!!!'

I understand that you are against euthanasia and therefore I'm not going to try and force my own views on you but please take that source with a pinch of salt - it is very clearly biased against euthanasia and is therefore not particularly reliable. I noted in your other post that you said euthanasia doesn't involve consent which is completely false and I imagine you got that information from this website. I'm all for having your own opinion and I completely see why some people are against euthanasia, but your opinion should be based on correct information at least. Also that website vastly downplays the doctrine of double effect, it's basically a way of allowing euthanasia except it takes longer. And the withdrawal of treatment you mentioned is a horrific thing to do to patients who are suffering, dying from starvation and dehydration can take a long time and be extremely painful (happened to my boyfriend's grandparent and it was horrible)

Sorry for two long posts. This is something I am very interested in having covered this in detail on both my undergraduate and postgraduate degrees.