Quite a fitting thread for The Symposium, euthanasia. Highly controversial practice, and I would like to see some opinions on the subject. I personally approve of it in certain circumstances, not all. I'll get into why in a later post, as I'm currently just got home from school and it's fucking hot today.

Post away!

I would only approve of euthanasia for vegetables like Terri Schaivo, and only with the explicit consent of whoever has power of attorney over the patient. For anyone capable of lucid interaction with other human beings I would oppose it in pretty much all circumstances, especially for suicidal mental patients.

It's a complicated issue.

I think that there should be some freedom when it comes to euthanasia, but there has to also be very strict laws. We don't want every crybaby who feels sick offing themselves without really trying to conquer their illness, and we don't want a bunch of greedy young folks pulling Great Uncle Ernest's plug to get at his inheritance.

I've never really held a strong opinion on this subject. I guess I would call it appropriate in circumstances where there is absolutely 100% no chance of recovery and the individual is suffering. However that's sometimes rather difficult to determine. I'm not sure whether the law favors the spouse or the parents, but consent would obviously be needed.

I completely approve of euthanasia. But this isn't really an issue to solve 'morally,' especially seeing how most people on the forum don't believe in absolute morality(seen from the thread 'Beyond Good and Evil').

I support euthanasia because I want it(to be available when in need). I don't really care if I die, but there is the fear of pain of death. I would like to die painlessly, whenever life gets extremely unbearable. That's pretty much the only reason : a personal one.

Anyway, I think the discussion should be about "what is beneficial to the largest number members of the society"(which is just the collective preference of the society, and not an absolutely right thing). I believe it's how any social issue is dealt with, in its essence(not necessarily on the surface, though). And yes, we often don't know the answer to the question, and thus choose a solution that is not the best. So, is euthanasia helpful to the society(not just on the surface, such as the effects it would have on economic prosperity, but also including other aspects such as the possibilty that you/your family/acquaintance might be in need of euthanasia), or is it harmful to it?

I have no moral quandary with people choosing to end their lives earlier than nature intended, but I do see some problems with euthanasia. I haven't given the subject an enormous amount of thought, but it seems to me that there's a risk of people convincing the potential subject of mercy killing to die for reasons other than to end his/her suffering, such as getting inheritance or just because of plain dislike. One would obviously need strict regulations to prevent such things.

Suicide is not a bannable offense (as far as I know) - therefore euthanasia should not be banned by any nature. I have no moral problems with this as it is just another act of free will. And I am for maximum civil liberty and policy of non-intervention I am all for euthanasia.

If someone wants to die with dignity rather than just be a hopeless vegatable and a drain on resources then they should be able to, again its a personal choice like suicide government shouldn't really have a say.

This is only a controversy in the Western, mostly Christian nations. Jesus suffered before he died when he could have ended it quickly if he wanted to (being God and all). Many Christians see suffering as a gift from God. That was a big thing for Mother Teresa -- she refused to give the suffering people any relief, not as much as an aspirin, because she saw suffering as a gift.

Other cultures see suicide as an honorable death.

I have no problem with euthanasia or suicide. I think we should all be responsible people, but if you don't create a mess for others to clean up, there is nothing wrong with it.

Personally, I want to live forever.

I never really thought much of euthanasia until I learned that I used to live not 15 minutes from the Schiavo house. This prompted me to look it up a little further.

There are two types: passive and active. Passive being the type where medicine or food is withheld to assist in a patient's death, active being the type where the patient is administered a substance to quicken the dying process. In my opinion, with patient consent, passive euthanasia would seem the most "ethical". If the patient is unable to give consent, then I believe a vote among the immediate and the closest part of the extended family of the patient should decide her fate.

There are legal documents that you can fill out to determine your fate if you should end up in a vegetative state. You should have a will, a living will and grant power of attorney to somebody who knows your wishes.

I disagree. If we start with the premise that euthanasia is acceptable, then the more ethical choice is active euthanasia. Given identical circumstances, there does not seem to be a morally relevant difference between killing someone and letting them die. Take the following example: say that John has a little cousin (let's call him Chris) who has won a large inheritance. John is going to inherit the money is Chris dies. So John goes up to Chris' bathroom one night as Chris is taking a bath, hits his head against the counter, and eases him into the water so Chris drowns. Pretty shitty, huh? Well, consider another scenario: let's say that instead of hitting Chris against the counter, John just notices that Chris slips, hits his head, and sinks under the water. He does not rescue the boy because he knows he is next in line for the inheritance. So which act is more heinous? I can't find a morally relevant difference.

Since the point of euthanasia is to relieve pain and suffering, and since there does not appear to be a morally relevant difference between killing and letting die (if all other conditions are equal) it seems only logical to do so actively instead of, say, removing a feeding tube and waiting for someone to die of thirst over the next couple of days.

I think the only difference between the two is that, legally, active euthanasia is frowned upon. Though you're right, there really isn't any huge difference.

Agreed. I would much rather, MUCH rather, be dead than disabled. There is nothing more frightening for me than to be in a wheelchair and completely dependant on other people. If I was in immeasurable pain, I would want to die.

Of course, if I were a vegetable, I wouldn't know any different, so I should either get the paperwork filled out beforehand, or hope I just die without consequences.

Well, I think that legality should follow morality, not the other way around. From an ethical perspective, active euthanasia is clearly the correct choice. I would say that it is actually considerably more ethical, because of the reason outlined earlier. Simply removing a feeding tube can lead to days of starvation or thirst, which is surely very uncomfortable for the patient.

I'm fine with both assisted suicide and euthanasia. I hope at least the former becomes legal here in the states eventually. No one should be forced to live longer than they want.

I would only allow it on people who are like vegetables but especially on people who are 100% sure of dying. I find it very nice to have the idea that I can request euthanasia in my country when I can't be healed, then I don't have to suffer.

I think the families of suicidal patients might disagree with you. Killing yourself because you don't feel like living anymore is a really shitty thing to do to your loved ones, your friends, and society and people who attempt it need mental help, even if they don't want it.

This. I also think when we get into the territory of "patient doesn't want to live" (although he may not be so seriously ill...i.e, assisted suicide), we basically gives Doctor Death a licence to kill.

Sadly, morality sometimes follows legality today. Active euthanasia does seem more ethical, though I believe the idea of administering something that kills is more unsettling to the family of the patient, rather than removing something that helps.

I would support it, but the problem is there will be some idiot who will find a loophole and abuse it. Thats the only problem I have with making it legal. There are ways around this, and I think they've been summed up in this thread correctly.

I can't understand you people's problem with youth in Asia. I mean personally, being young and having a small penis would be just horrible, but they seem blissfully unaware, so leave them be...

This kind of random bullshit gets you kicked out of the joint.

I didn't even understand what it meant until I now. Looking back, it's rather surprising that no one brought up the Megadeth album before the 32nd post.

Yes, a Euthanasia thread! I've been waiting for this...

Yes, a sensible Euthanasia policy is absolutely essential. Any family should have the option of having a loved one put to sleep if the alternative is far worse, such as permanent brain damage. Only one's family should have this authority. Most families would not want to see one of their own blood living as a mindless wretch, and most people would want their families to let them die with dignity.

And, in fact, that's what this whole debate is about: dignity. The Christian extremists would not want you die with dignity - or live with dignity, for that matter. Any state truly concerned with a genuine seperation of church and state would be quick to enact a Euthenasia policy that gives any family the legal right to put their kin to death if that person's suffering cannot be assuaged. I would argue that rather than just being desireable, it is essential.

Also, Euthenasia happens all the time. We have our pets put to sleep. We even occassionally have the machines turned off on a relative who is past being cured. It is a natural human desire to allow a loved one to pass on with as little suffering as possible. As an advocate of Euthanasia, I support the right of all families to deal with their own with impunity, free from the meddlings of church and government.

Revived.

It would be abused that what scares me- not that it's about to be legalised in Uganda.
But on the other hand, i think if somebody is (literally) sick of living because of the effects of disease they should have the right to die.

If someone is being held together by a machine, that's not life. That's artificial. Remove the machine and let them pass away peacefully.

As for anything else, I'm not sure. It's easy to say these things but if it is someone you know...

I find this to be an interesting topic since I had an aunt pass away a few days ago who was on life support. Doctors performed tests and determined she had almost zero brain activity save for the most basic functions (heartbeat and breathing). My uncle opted to have the life support systems removed and let her pass away peacefully. There was no objection from any family.

I've never really given the subject too much thought, but after my recent experience I've thought about it a lot more, and I have conlcuded it should be legal, or "allowed". There of course need to be laws regulating it. I suppose one of the main controversies surrounding the issue is who makes the final decision? Some would argue the parents of the patient, some would argue the spouse (if there is one). I suppose the age of the patient would have to be taken into account as well, since if the patient is above 18 they're an adult and technically the parents have little if any governance over them (if there is a spouse). Maybe not. I think I'm still on the fence about that, but if I had to make a choice right now, I would be slightly biased from my experience and say the final decision should be made by the spouse, if there is one.

For the record my uncle is not religious and does not believe in God, so there wasn't any influence of religion in his decision. There was a standard funeral service, however.

I have always supported euthanasia and will continue to do so. I believe you have a right to end your own life whether you want to for whatever reason. Of course, this doesn't include things such as suicide bombing, but hey if you want to die, it should be your right.

If I wanted to end my own life I would without question. We should keep in mind though that we only get one life. However if someone is suffering and there is no hope and they wish to die, then they should be allowed to end their life.

It depends. On vegetables like Terri Shiavo, I definitely approve. I'll also approve of it if a person is TERMINALLY sick, because he/she is going to die anyway, and maybe Euthanasia may serve as a less painful way to go.

Euthanasia should be legal simply because it's a quicker, more honorable(in some examples) way to go. We all die and if I'm draining my families money I'd rather die.

That Terri Shiavo incident was sadder to me than a hundred 9-11's. Imagine, capitalizing off this woman's pain, keeping her alive when there's no good reason to do so. And kept alive by the same people who believe that their God would extinguish her quickly and give her a painless death if she were deserving of His mercy. Being not extinguished, it follows that she somehow deserved an ignominious and depraved last few months, attached to a fucking machine. This was god's will, far be it from any of us to even have a conception of dignified death. Our deaths, like our lives, are devoid of dignity unless He's decided otherwise.

...no wonder pride's such a sin. Anybody with a shred of it would cease to worship.

The answer to the question of Euthanasia is actually really simple
If they choose to die : Kill 'Em
If they are unable to make a decision : Kill 'Em

If the person is a vegetable or so old they're practically dead, they can't make a decision. They become a burden. And at this point, there really is no point in keeping them alive, since they can't even reciprocate feelings of love or contribute ANYTHING to anything. I don't see how its such a dilemma. There's really no morality attached to it. If the person is in a vegetative state, or something akin to that, they're basically dead. Their body may be alive, but that doesn't matter. Their mind is dead, therefore what makes the person them is gone, what's left is a shell. Besides, isn't it our ability to choose is what makes us human?

I agree that its just letting them die. If they are in a coma for years your going to have to let go sometime. I believe it best to just trust if they are meant to live they would be okay. I think its unfair for the family members to have to suffer and have their lives ruined especially if the victim states that they want the plug pulled if they are in an accident.

Gotta take a leap of faith SOMEWHERE. If we only made decisions on things that we know 100% for sure, no one would make a decision about anything, ever. No one knows anything 100%

http://www.economist.com/science/displa ... extfeature

Religious people are more likely to seek the maximal extension of life possible, despite the fact that, presumably, most expect to get into heaven.

I'm glad to see that a lot of bases were covered in this thread, specifically the "killing vs. letting die" argument.

Funny thing is, "passive" euthanasia is largely legal in the United States, while "active" euthanasia is illegal in most places (Oregon being a major exception). In case you don't want to read this whole thread: passive euthanasia usually means yanking out feeding tubes and letting the person die of starvation or dehydration, or in cases where a respirator is needed, shutting that off and letting the person suffocate. Obviously, these choices are totally moral high-roads and are way more acceptable than overdosing the person on morphine (a strong pain suppressant) and letting them die painlessly and asleep. Obviously.

Like was said before, there's really no moral distinction between killing someone and letting them die. Anyone who thinks they're getting off the hook because they pulled a feeding tube rather injecting a lethal dose of morphine is just an ignorant asshole who is more concerned with getting into heaven than the comfort of his loved one/patient/whatever.

As you can probably guess, I completely agree that euthanasia should be an option for all terminally ill patients. I've heard a lot of "slippery slope" arguments, mainly from religious zealots, that hold no water. I can't possibly imagine people wanting to kill themselves left and right just because euthanasia is legal. And I'm talking seriously "terminally ill" with no hope for recovery, as diagnosed by at least two different doctors. I think it should also be an option for non-terminal patients whose quality of life is permanently reduced. Of course, in all of these circumstances, you would want some form of permission from the patient and/or his family, via direct consent, living will, or a family proxy.

I think Euthanasia is completely correct and if someone wants to be killed and needs assistace it is their right, no discussion of their mental state or if they know what theyre doing. The only problem is distinguishing Euthanasia from murder disguised as Euthanasia