Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Should Assisted Dying be legal?

Poll

Should Assisted Dying be legal?

Yes or no? and why?

I say yes, because I am pro choose and people should decide for themselves how and when they want to die and if they want to choose all together.

(edited 8 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Rat_Bag

Yes. It's madness that people with a persistent desire to die with an identifiable and irreversible cause of this desire, are not treated like grown up individuals and given the choice to act on their desire.

Reply 2

Sabertooth

Absolutely it should.

Reply 3

h.dan

It should be. We're leaning (as a world) towards that way anyway:

As of October 2015 , human euthanasia is legal only in the Netherlands, Belgium,Colombia and Luxembourg. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, Germany, Japan,Albania and in the US states of Washington, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Montana and California (effective January 1, 2016).

Maybe one day every country will abide to it and everyone will have a right to opting for assisted suicide/euthanasia. However, that probably won't happen in certain countries that are very religious and do not condone suicide (not saying any countries do, but you know what I mean).

Reply 4

cherryred90s

Original post by saxsan4

Yes or no? and why?

I say yes, because I am pro choose and people should decide for themselves how and when they want to die and if they want to choose all together.

I think this might be the first, but I agree with you. Should definitely be legal. It's horrible that people are made to live with their pain and be a burden on their family. If they want to die, they should be allowed to, not having to travel all the way to Zurich or whatever

Reply 5

saxsan4

Original post by cherryred90s

I think this might be the first, but I agree with you. Should definitely be legal. It's horrible that people are made to live with their pain arnd be a burden on their family. If they want to die, they should be allowed to, not having to travel all the way to Zurich or whatever

It's good that we aggree

Reply 6

sleepysnooze

I think forcing somebody to live through torturous life conditions against their will is akin to the state torturing the person themselves, because they are actively causing events that cause torment. also, people own themselves, and they can do what they want with what they own provided they don't hurt others in the process, so people can end their lives, being the masters of their own lives.

Reply 7

EccentricDiamond

Original post by sleepysnooze

couldn't agree more i believe that forcing someone to suffer is a despicable evil and no one has the right to force someone to live. I think it is backwards and as long as someone is of sound mind then they have the right to end their life if they are suffering a debilitating illness.

One of the most vocal opponents of assisted suicide are religious savages whos opinion does not hold weight in todays world

Reply 8

username2088165

I think it should be legal. No one should be forced to suffer unnecessarily, for example if a person has a terminal illness, they should be able to choose to end their life early if they wish to, instead of being forced to remain in pain/discomfort.

Reply 9

Retired_Messiah

It should be legal providing the person in question is able to provide consent themselves. Would be awks if you killed a guy who didn't actually want to go

Reply 10

a noble chance

Original post by Foo.mp3

Yup, with sufficient safeguards in place and limited to those with either terminal or extremely painful conditions

Those safeguards have often failed in countries that use it. The truth is that there is no reliable safeguard against this sort of abuse once the gates are opened.

Randy Stroup who had prostate cancer was also offered doctor-prescribed suicide by the Oregon Health Plan.

Some terminally ill patients in Oregon who turned to their state for health care were denied treatment and offered doctor-assisted suicide instead, a proposal some experts have called a “chilling” corruption of medical ethics.

http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/oregon/

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 11

EccentricDiamond

Original post by a noble chance

Those safeguards have often failed in countries that use it. The truth is that there is no reliable safeguard against this sort of abuse once the gates are opened.

http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/oregon/

it's a separate issue

Original post by EccentricDiamond

it's a separate issue

If it were a separate issue then it would also happen in other developed, liberal democracies without assisted dying. It doesn't. This is a direct result of making euthanasia available.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 14

EccentricDiamond

Original post by a noble chance

If it were a separate issue then it would also happen in other developed, liberal democracies without assisted dying. It doesn't. This is a direct result of making euthanasia available.

no it is a separate issue because people have the right to end their lives this should not stay illegal because there may be some abuses. Any potential for abuse should be treated separately.

thats like banning everyone from driving because some people might get hit by a car and die,

Your statement is a false dichotomy

Reply 15

hellodave5

Original post by Foo.mp3

So we review safeguards, design as watertight a system as we can, and then calculate the probabilistic welfare differential (would be surprised if it were a net loss)

Come again?
Sounds smart. I like it!

Reply 16

hellodave5

Original post by Foo.mp3

The differential in welfare outcomes under 'do nothing' vs. 'implement right to die' scenarios, weighted by probability i.e. suffering likely to be averted minus suffering likely to be caused. If it's a net win (and I suspect it would be a big one) then it is incumbent upon leaders of good conscience to pursue such a policy

Yah definitely.
Just that we don't trust ourselves with slippery slopes... it seems.

Reply 17

enephesti

Yes. I think that in circumstances where someone has a terminal illness or a totally disabling illness or disability, they should absolutely have the chance to end their life with dignity.

Reply 18

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by EccentricDiamond

There exist some things that should be and are completely banned from society because of the minority that might abuse them, even though the majority of people would use them reasonably and well. You could say it's like banning everyone from driving because some people might crash their cars, but I could say it's like banning gun ownership because some people might accidentally shoot people with them. And we have banned guns. His argument is not necessarily wrong on the face of it.

Even so I don't think euthanasia is something that should be completely banned.

Reply 19

Katty3

No. It is too open to abuse. There are no safeguards that could prevent some doctors abusing this. Pressure could be placed on the individual concerned to make that decision when they don't want to.

The family may also put pressure on the patient to commit suicide due to inheritance issues or because that person is viewed as a burden on the family.

I also have issues with assisted suicide because of the message. It removes the sanctity of life if suicide, instead of being seen as something to prevent, is acceptable.

It also puts health care professionals in a difficult position as they are being asked to provide something that will kill a person when they went into that profession to prolong life.

Posted from TSR Mobile