Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Please support your answer. Explain why.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    It's a messy area. In a lot of patients who would be eligible for legal euthanasia should it be implemented, their mental state will have deteriorated to the point where you have to ask if they're capable of making that decision in that first place. It's not like you can have an official guideline of "Quality of Life" to judge people by because something like that is inherently subjective.

    I'm still for, but I understand why there's pushback, it's messy. I think you'd need a varied panel of medical professionals to evaluate each individual case, unsure how they handle it in countries where it is legal.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    I like to think of both sides of an arguement
    Pro:
    People should have the right to choose whether they live or die- freedom of will.

    In the case of terminally ill patients and people with debilitating chronic conditions- the right thing to do would be to offer euthanasia to end their suffering, provided of course that there is no cure or treatment for what they are suffering in particular, as really sometimes they have nothing to live for.

    Cons:
    Where do you draw the line for sufficient reason as to perform euthanasia?

    In the state of Oregon one of the top reasons for wanting euthanasia was deppression, sadness and not pain. For such people counselling should be offered instead of ending their lives prematurely.

    The religious arguement

    The potential for immoral and unjust unnecessary deaths occurring due to abuses of the system by doctors for example. This is/was the case in the Netherlands where euthanasia has been legalised.

    Conc.
    Euthanasia should be offered but with a clear system and guidelines in place to prevent unneccessary death with counselling offered for people who want to end their lives- as its not like they can take back their decision
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexander7931)
    I like to think of both sides of an arguement
    Pro:
    People should have the right to choose whether they live or die- freedom of will.

    In the case of terminally ill patients and people with debilitating chronic conditions- the right thing to do would be to offer euthanasia to end their suffering, provided of course that there is no cure or treatment for what they are suffering in particular, as really sometimes they have nothing to live for.

    Cons:
    Where do you draw the line for sufficient reason as to perform euthanasia?

    In the state of Oregon one of the top reasons for wanting euthanasia was deppression, sadness and not pain. For such people counselling should be offered instead of ending their lives prematurely.

    The religious arguement

    The potential for immoral and unjust unnecessary deaths occurring due to abuses of the system by doctors for example. This is/was the case in the Netherlands where euthanasia has been legalised.

    Conc.
    Euthanasia should be offered but with a clear system and guidelines in place to prevent unneccessary death with counselling offered for people who want to end their lives- as its not like they can take back their decision
    Thank youu
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Against, doctors are there to save lives not end them
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.