[CLOSED] Euthanasia, The consent of taking your own life - ENDS 15TH APRIL, 2017

[Brad]

https://habbox.com/staffupload/../assets/images//4c73e59a6760bef6b093844f0de898d5.png

Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide (dying), doctor-assisted dying (suicide), and more loosely termed mercy killing, means to take a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable (persistent, unstoppable) suffering.
When it comes to this topic, it is literally between life and death. It is an act towards ending your life with confidence that you in control, and you have given consent. It has become a highly debatable topic whether or not someone should be able to take their own life or not, and not in the form of suicide, as suicide and euthanasia run side by side but not entirely the same.
I know that in some countries euthanasia is legal and it is not at all frowned upon but places such as North America (Canada, and United States of America) it is still a controversy that still is questioned. There are some people that travel to places where it is legal to have it done, and those individuals choose whether it be health reasons, or age.
What is your view on Euthanasia? Should someone be able to take their life, or should this form of self help death be stopped?

If you are for Euthanasia, do you believe that there should be guidelines in which an individual must meet before qualifying for euthanasia?
If you are against Euthanasia, what makes this act unacceptable? Do you feel like there are other opportunities for those requesting and investigating this?

Let me know your thoughts. Let the debate begin!

This Debate will end on 15th April, 2017!


The debate is now up to you! Good contributions will be rewarded with likes and/or royalty points throughout the thread and the member who makes the best contributions throughout the month may give you any of these rewards found here (https://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=841110). Also, with contributing towards the Featured Member Debate will get you this reward! (https://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=841095)
http://habboxwiki.com/wiki/images/1/16/Debatestransparent.gif

[Landon]

I don't see why it shouldn't be legal for a very, very sick person who has no chance of recovering. The medicine they take better work though or you're going to see a lot of people suffering in severe pain.

[scottish]

I don't see why it shouldn't be legal but there should be strict guidelines in place in which a client must meet in order to be considered.

[hungryfront]

I watched the film Me Before You a while ago and it was really sad, and it's a real eye opener into euthanasia to be honest. If someone is suffering a lot, it may be better to let them go. We do it to dogs, so why can't we do it to people?

[Charlie]

I'm for it, with strict guidelines so it won't happen to someone who might not be completely sure and/or able to completely consent to it and it should only be allowed in extreme cases, such as if someone is in a lot of pain, or just have an extremely poor quality of life due to an illness with little or no chance of recovery.

It's easy for people to say that it should be illegal and they don't agree with but they aren't in that situation, they aren't experiencing what someone who might want to do it are experiencing. It's like with an animal, if it's in pain, it's suffering and you know you can't do anything to help it, it gets put down so why isn't that option available to someone who can be fully aware of what they are choosing to do?

[Landon]

I don't see why it shouldn't be legal but there should be strict guidelines in place in which a client must meet in order to be considered.

Pretty sure in Washington state or wherever it is legal, person needs to be approved by two or three doctors who say the condition is irreversible.

[Brad]

I don't see why it shouldn't be legal for a very, very sick person who has no chance of recovering. The medicine they take better work though or you're going to see a lot of people suffering in severe pain.


I don't see why it shouldn't be legal but there should be strict guidelines in place in which a client must meet in order to be considered.


I watched the film Me Before You a while ago and it was really sad, and it's a real eye opener into euthanasia to be honest. If someone is suffering a lot, it may be better to let them go. We do it to dogs, so why can't we do it to people?


I'm for it, with strict guidelines so it won't happen to someone who might not be completely sure and/or able to completely consent to it and it should only be allowed in extreme cases, such as if someone is in a lot of pain, or just have an extremely poor quality of life due to an illness with little or no chance of recovery.

It's easy for people to say that it should be illegal and they don't agree with but they aren't in that situation, they aren't experiencing what someone who might want to do it are experiencing. It's like with an animal, if it's in pain, it's suffering and you know you can't do anything to help it, it gets put down so why isn't that option available to someone who can be fully aware of what they are choosing to do?

I'm going to play devil's advocate for everyone and say that it should remain illegal this procedure would increase drastically, and there are some elderly that do not have the ability to speak, write, or acknowledge this mercy killing so what makes this right to allow someone to decide to end their life.


"In a society as obsessed with the costs of health care and the principle of utility, the dangers of the slippery slope... are far from fantasy...

Assisted suicide is a half-way house, a stop on the way to other forms of direct euthanasia, for example, for incompetent patients by advance directive or suicide in the elderly. So, too, is voluntary euthanasia a half-way house to involuntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia. If terminating life is a benefit, the reasoning goes, why should euthanasia be limited only to those who can give consent?"


"The prohibition against killing patients... stands as the first promise of self-restraint sworn to in the Hippocratic Oath, as medicine's primary taboo: 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect'... In forswearing the giving of poison when asked for it, the Hippocratic physician rejects the view that the patient's choice for death can make killing him right. For the physician, at least, human life in living bodies commands respect and reverence--by its very nature. As its respectability does not depend upon human agreement or patient consent, revocation of one's consent to live does not deprive one's living body of respectability. The deepest ethical principle restraining the physician's power is not the autonomy or freedom of the patient; neither is it his own compassion or good intention. Rather, it is the dignity and mysterious power of human life itself, and therefore, also what the Oath calls the purity and holiness of life and art to which he has sworn devotion."

So there a few things that I see here... 1. Euthanasia is abuse to the doctor's first rule, and that is life.
And 2. Euthanasia can easily be abused, and can lead to involuntary deaths.

Any thoughts?

[scottish]

I wouldn't allow the doctors to make the decision so it would never be abused by doctors, it would require the persons explicit consent, not anyone on behalf of them.

The often misquoted quote from the Hippocratic Oath was restated as: "Practice two things in your dealings with disease: either help or do not harm the patient" (Thomas Inman). Ending their suffering would suffice as 'helping' the patient.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1139892.html

The plaintiffs are four physicians who treat terminally ill patients, three terminally ill patients, and a Washington non-profit organization called Compassion In Dying.2  The four physicians-Dr. Harold Glucksberg, Dr. Thomas A. Preston, Dr. Abigail Halperin, and Dr. Peter Shalit-are respected doctors whose expertise is recognized by the state.   All declare that they periodically treat terminally ill, competent adults who wish to hasten their deaths with help from their physicians.   The doctors state that in their professional judgment they should provide that help but are deterred from doing so by a Washington statute that makes it a felony to knowingly aid another person to commit suicide.

[Charlie]

With strict guidelines in place, there wouldn't be anyway to abuse it. It should only be done with the patients consent, knowing full well that they are 100% aware and sure of the decision they are making. Maybe in extreme cases where the patient can't consent but it is clearly the best option, a family member can make the decision, similar to turning off the life support if you know someone isn't going to make it.

Doctors should do what they can to help the patients, and as scottish said, ending their suffering would be helping the patient.

[hungryfront]

It's not really euthanasia, but one of my teacher's grandma was going blind and deaf (not completely) and was diagnosed with cancer. She didn't want to live any more so simply refused food and water in hospital which you're allowed to do - wouldn't euthanasia be less painful (and less traumatic for family)?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Whilst I lean towards legalising the practice I do think it inevitable that it would end up being abused and you would have cases of people being pressured into it and/or with mental illness/disability giving permission. The permission argument also becomes more complex when you have somebody who has stated in the past they want X if Y happens, but there is no way of obtaining their express permission given their recent/sudden impairment.

A company like Dignitas I trust with these matters, not the NHS.

[Brad]

This Debate is still open and ready for you to post. For every submission after this post will earn you 2 HxEE points, and if deemed contributive, you will also receive points towards the monthly awards! Good luck!

[Empired]

I'd argue if someone truly believes they're against proper, dignified euthanasia then they've never seen real suffering and just don't know what they're talking about.

[Brad]

I'd argue if someone truly believes they're against proper, dignified euthanasia then they've never seen real suffering and just don't know what they're talking about.

Below is a Map of the world, countries in red are still against euthanasia.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Legality_of_euthanasia.svg
Current status of euthanasia around the world:
Dark Blue - Active euthanasia is legal
Light Blue - Passive euthanasia is legal
Black - Euthanasia laws vary by administrative division
Red - Euthanasia is illegal
Grey - Unknown


Active euthanasia

Active euthanasia occurs when the medical professionals, or another person, deliberately do something that causes the patient to die.

Passive euthanasia

Passive euthanasia occurs when the patient dies because the medical professionals either don't do something necessary to keep the patient alive, or when they stop doing something that is keeping the patient alive.


switch off life-support machines
disconnect a feeding tube
don't carry out a life-extending operation
don't give life-extending drugs



So I guess you'll have to take a step future into what type of euthanasia you agree with. Passive, or Active... or if you agree with both.

Thoughts?

[Empired]

Im entirely pro active euthanasia. I believe it should be a right to decide to take your own life and you should be given options to do it safely with dignity still in tact.

[Landon]

Im entirely pro active euthanasia. I believe it should be a right to decide to take your own life and you should be given options to do it safely with dignity still in tact.

I am trying to understand what you are saying.
Are you supporting a perfectly normal person who wants to take their life without medical reason? (suicide)

[scottish]

I am trying to understand what you are saying.
Are you supporting a perfectly normal person who wants to take their life without medical reason? (suicide)

No, the whole premise behind this thread is terminally ill, etc.

[Empired]

I am trying to understand what you are saying.
Are you supporting a perfectly normal person who wants to take their life without medical reason? (suicide)
Are you supporting the idea of denying a person the right to die in a safe environment and instead of pushing them to jump in front of a train? Hop in the bathtub and OD? Find something extremely tall to jump from?

And to answer your question, no I'm not supporting that. I'm talking about those who have physical lifelong or long term illnesses who are just fucking done with life.

[Brad]

Im entirely pro active euthanasia. I believe it should be a right to decide to take your own life and you should be given options to do it safely with dignity still in tact.

but why aren't you pro passive as well?
What if they are on life support, in a coma and in extreme pain from an accident (just making an example). So you're saying that you'd be against taking that person off life support because you believe that the individual needs to decide to be taken off of life support? So instead of taking him off life support, you're allowing the incurring charges of medical attention (I'm speaking mostly those who do not have medical insurance) to someone who may not have had a chance to write up a will.

Would it be in the best interest of the family to over ride the individual's rights and have the parent/partner/next-to-kin call the shot on this one?

Thoughts?

[Empired]

I assumed by saying I'm pro active it was pretty obvious I'm also pro passive.

[Brad]

I see, then please state it as it may have been perceived that you were only pro active.

Does anyone have any thoughts as to why countries, in which I had stated above, would still be against euthanasia?

[scottish]

I though it was obviously implied too.

[Brad]

I though it was obviously implied too.

For someone who is active in debates, I'm surprised that you didn't ask the same thing I did.

Just because it is "implied" doesn't mean that it is what they were implying. That is based upon perception. You're assuming that even though they did not necessarily say it, they still meant it.

If I'm bringing this back to the topic of the debate. Someone can imply that if they were on life support or in critical, life-threatening state, that they'd want to be removed from it... doesn't actually mean that they are going to be taken off. Now let's say that individual actually stated in written form that if the above situation happened, then to proceed with taking them off life support thus allowing euthanasia take place.

As my father always said;
If you assume something, you will always make an "Ass" out of "U" and "ME"

[Empired]

Calm down brad I'm sorry I didn't dot my i's and cross all my t's

I can only assume other countries still don't allow at least passive euthanasia (I understand active euthanasia is more of a grey area) because of either backward religious reasoning or the stupid argument of "it's always been this way". But as we're not allowed to assume in this debate anymore I suppose my point is entirely invalid.

[Landon]

Are you supporting the idea of denying a person the right to die in a safe environment and instead of pushing them to jump in front of a train? Hop in the bathtub and OD? Find something extremely tall to jump from?

Yep! I don't agree with suicide nor do I think someone should choose to go into a medical facility to die instead of jump off of a building for instance. They need to be put in a mental facility of some sort for depression and treatment.

[Brad]

But as we're not allowed to assume in this debate anymore I suppose my point is entirely invalid.

No, your point is valid. I just questioned what was unwritten.
As others will/would have as well.

I didn't say you couldn't assume, but if you're going to post in a debate (just like all other debates), someone is going to question it. Just be ready to support it or defend what you have said.
that's all.

So I guess to continue on with the debate;

Does anyone have any thoughts as to why countries, in which I had stated above, would still be against euthanasia?

[Empired]

I "don't agree" with suicide but that doesn't actually have any effect on whether people commit suicide does it.

"Don't commit suicide it goes against my morals"
"Oh you're right Landon wow I'm all cured now let me transform into a fully functioning and healthy member of society".

Also we can't dump anyone who's having suicidal thoughts in an institution or we'd lose most of the Western teenaged population.

[scottish]

For someone who is active in debates, I'm surprised that you didn't ask the same thing I did.

Just because it is "implied" doesn't mean that it is what they were implying. That is based upon perception. You're assuming that even though they did not necessarily say it, they still meant it.

If I'm bringing this back to the topic of the debate. Someone can imply that if they were on life support or in critical, life-threatening state, that they'd want to be removed from it... doesn't actually mean that they are going to be taken off. Now let's say that individual actually stated in written form that if the above situation happened, then to proceed with taking them off life support thus allowing euthanasia take place.

As my father always said;

It's not an assumption it's a logical conclusion/implication. Logically if you support active you'll support passive.

You're not going to allow medical professionals to actively take a part in ending someone's life and utterly oppose them from taking no action which results in the death of the patient... it doesn't make sense does it?

[Brad]

Yep! I don't agree with suicide nor do I think someone should choose to go into a medical facility to die instead of jump off of a building for instance. They need to be put in a mental facility of some sort for depression and treatment.

Suicide and Active Euthanasia are two different matters, though run the same path. Because both is voluntary and intentionally. One is more inhumane than the others, one also effects in a negative way as the other is more accepted.

[Landon]

I "don't agree" with suicide but that doesn't actually have any effect on whether people commit suicide does it.

"Don't commit suicide it goes against my morals"
"Oh you're right Landon wow I'm all cured now let me transform into a fully functioning and healthy member of society".

Why do you say that you're against suicide but then attack me for saying that I don't think it's right? You are contradicting yourself.

That's why I questioned you about your comment on euthanasia. You seem to defend a very aggressive form of the topic? And now, you are saying that some of the "western teenaged population" are suicidal which is true, but you said that we can't send them all to an institution which leaves them hopeless lol. It sure seems like you are for ending lives without medical reasoning.

[Brad]

It's not an assumption it's a logical conclusion/implication. Logically if you support active you'll support passive.

I disagree with this.
You can support active euthanasia and not passive euthanasia or vise versa.

[scottish]

Passive and not active yes, but active and not passive doesn't make sense?

You'll allow them to actively take measures to end a life but not won't allow them to take a back seat not intervening and result in the patients death?

[Empired]

I'm not attacking your view on suicide; it's a horrible messy painful thing that no one should have to endure. (But the sad truth is we do have to endure it even if we shouldn't have to.)

So I'm not attacking that, I'm attacking your naive view of the entire thing. This is not a perfect world. People commit suicide and wish for euthanasia.

And in response to leaving people hopeless, of course not. What a black and white view of the world. There is not just one treatment of depression and I'm genuinely sad you've got this far in life without seeing that. It is not simply lock them up or leave them to rot. What about IPT? CBT? I've tried both of these treatments and luckily for me both have been fairly successful. Now that's not hopeless is it?

[FlyingJesus]

You can support active euthanasia and not passive euthanasia or vise versa.

Why would anyone support giving people cocktails of death-inducing drugs but think turning off a computer is too much

[Landon]

So I'm not attacking that, I'm attacking your naive view of the entire thing. This is not a perfect world. People commit suicide and wish for euthanasia.

People commit suicide and wish for euthanasia. But is this okay?

My view isn't naive. Yours is because of the fact that yes, you are clearly admitting that the world has problems, but there are no solutions to it.

Oh okay. We can't put "most of the western teenaged population" (which is false) into mental wards. We'll just let them remain depressed.

Or: People should go in to medical facilities to take pills to kill themselves instead of jumping off of a building and jumping in front of a train. While this is certainly an ideal way to pass instead of the gore involved with the other methods, the concept of intentionally wanting to take your life doesn't change.

[Empired]

Hey Landon the 1960s called, they want their attitude to mental health back.

[Landon]

Hey Landon the 1960s called, they want their attitude to mental health back.

It won't happen haha. Good job avoiding the question though.

[Empired]

What question, are suicide and euthanasia okay?

I thought I'd answered that previously. Of course theyre not "okay" but they're all part of humanity. Stupid ugly chaotic beautiful responsible irresponsible and utterly uncontrollable humanity. Sometimes things are simply not okay and actually that in itself is ok. Sometimes there are no coherent solutions to our problems but in by experiencing our problems together we become united.

The world is not black and white as you say, Landon. It is not just filled with problems which we need to mix and match to the correct solution. And to me I find a lot of comfort in this imperfection.

[Brad]

Why would anyone support giving people cocktails of death-inducing drugs but think turning off a computer is too much

Because when you give a cocktail to an individual with the death inducing drug.. if they agree to it- they are agreeing to do it. They are accepting it.
If they are not able to make the decision of turning off the computer, then it's involuntary, and there is no consent.

[Landon]

Sometimes there are no coherent solutions to our problems but in by experiencing our problems together we become united.

There's no coherent solutions to suicide or euthanasia. Okay.

That's the problem with our world. No one has a drive to change.

[Empired]

Id argue there is a coherent solution to euthanasia: to allow it and let those dying of physical long term illness a merciful death.

[Landon]

let those dying of physical long term illness a merciful death.

That's more like it. Thank you for elaborating. :)

[Empired]

That's more like it. Thank you for elaborating. :)
I actually said that on page two lol.

[Alysha]

If someone is pro-active euthanasia then it's not by assumption that they're pro-passive. Active is the top of the chain and then anything below is also agreed upon. I don't quite know how this became so suicide based, but in terms of euthanasia, if the person is 100% on their decision and there is no way they can improve their health (because it is assumedwe're discussing assisted suicide in the physically long term ill) then I'm all for it. Who is to decide that they have to live in a world trapped within an illness and suffering, when if that person wants to stop it, they have the ability to. It would take a lot for that person to have the courage to do it, but if their decision can be backed by some sort of professional then it's ultimately something that no one apart from the person it affects that should have a say in.
So I think it should be legal.

[Brad]

If someone is pro-active euthanasia then it's not by assumption that they're pro-passive. Active is the top of the chain and then anything below is also agreed upon. I don't quite know how this became so suicide based, but in terms of euthanasia, if the person is 100% on their decision and there is no way they can improve their health (because it is assumedwe're discussing assisted suicide in the physically long term ill) then I'm all for it. Who is to decide that they have to live in a world trapped within an illness and suffering, when if that person wants to stop it, they have the ability to. It would take a lot for that person to have the courage to do it, but if their decision can be backed by some sort of professional then it's ultimately something that no one apart from the person it affects that should have a say in.
So I think it should be legal.

So I see two contradiction in your post. You start off with saying that if you are pro active you automatically agree to be pro passive and I 100% absolutely disagree with that. You can definitely be pro active but not pro passive.
The next thing is that you say is "who is to decide that they have to live in a world trapped within an illness." - so what if this illness takes away the ability to write, and speak and puts this person in a state where, if you were in the right mind, you'd just assume that they want to end their life. How are you supposed to get a response out of them. Being pro passive is very serious because you technically are saying that if by any chance, that person cannot consent for themselves, the call to end the life would go to next to kin, which therefore overrides being pro active because pro active is self consented.

Thoughts?

[Alysha]

So I see two contradiction in your post. You start off with saying that if you are pro active you automatically agree to be pro passive and I 100% absolutely disagree with that. You can definitely be pro active but not pro passive.
The next thing is that you say is "who is to decide that they have to live in a world trapped within an illness." - so what if this illness takes away the ability to write, and speak and puts this person in a state where, if you were in the right mind, you'd just assume that they want to end their life. How are you supposed to get a response out of them. Being pro passive is very serious because you technically are saying that if by any chance, that person cannot consent for themselves, the call to end the life would go to next to kin, which therefore overrides being pro active because pro active is self consented.

Thoughts?
I don't see how you'd be against letting someone die passively, if you were willing to end their life through active actions...
You can't just assume they want to end their life if they're ill, obviously I meant that they'd have asked for it in some way, it's not anyone else's choice to keep them alive was my point. Only their own.
Granted there are situations where they are unable to consent, but that doesn't automatically mean they want it. Some people are happy to live with it. A passive situation only falls to the next of kin if there's no correspondence from the person for a set amount of time. Even then, if you agree with them doing it themselves, you'd agree to do it for them.
i mean this in a situational sense.

[FlyingJesus]

Passive doesn't mean doing it without their permission, it means simply NOT doing extra to save a person who wouldn't be living without intervention

[Brad]

I don't see how you'd be against letting someone die passively, if you were willing to end their life through active actions...
You can't just assume they want to end their life if they're ill, obviously I meant that they'd have asked for it in some way, it's not anyone else's choice to keep them alive was my point. Only their own.
Granted there are situations where they are unable to consent, but that doesn't automatically mean they want it. Some people are happy to live with it. A passive situation only falls to the next of kin if there's no correspondence from the person for a set amount of time. Even then, if you agree with them doing it themselves, you'd agree to do it for them.
i mean this in a situational sense.

I don't believe I've stated anywhere that I was either for or against passive euthanasia. I simply questioned the contradictions in your post.
Nor do I assume that anyone would want to end their life based upon an outwards appearance.

These passive euthanasia practices are very interesting because an individual who is on life support may want to be taken off, but has no verbal/written agreement in doing so.
But the person next to them, who let's say has a DNR(Do not rececitate) has actively signed a passive euthanasia request.



The standard ways of distinguishing between active and passive euthanasia, act versus omission, and removal of ordinary versus removal of extraordinary care, do not have any clear moral significance. We have used particular aspects of the physician-patient relationship to make a morally significant distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is defined as the physician's abiding by the rational valid refusal of life-sustaining treatment of a patient or his surrogate decision-maker. Understanding passive euthanasia in this way makes it clear why, everything else being equal, there is no morally significant difference between discontinuing a treatment and not starting it, for example, taking a patient off a respirator versus not putting him on in the first place. It also makes clear why stopping the feeding and hydration of some patients is not merely morally permissible but is morally required. Patients may make a rational valid refusal of food and fluids just as they may of other kinds of life support, and what patients rationally refuse when competent holds its force when they become incompetent. By basing the distinction between active and passive euthanasia on the universally recognized moral force of a rational valid refusal, we have provided a clear foundation for the moral significance of this distinction. Our way of making the distinction preserves for patients the control over their lives that has sometimes been unjustifiably taken from them. It also eases the burden on doctors who no longer are forced to make use of ad hoc and confused distinctions in which they justifiably have little faith.

I think we begin to ask ourselves about life in general. If you are in a state where there is more chance of you dying than living, why waste resources and money on you when they could invest that time and effort into someone else who has a greater chance of living.
Thoughts on my last comment?

- - - Updated - - -


Passive doesn't mean doing it without their permission, it means simply NOT doing extra to save a person who wouldn't be living without intervention

Read my post I just posted xoxox
Does that bring clarification to what you just posted

[Landon]

I actually said that on page two lol.

Really? Because all I really see is you saying that people should be able to be euthanized to commit suicide instead of jumping in front of trains or jumping off of buildings and also that most of the western teenage population want to commit suicide.


Read my post I just posted xoxox
Does that bring clarification to what you just posted

Don't expect him to agree - its not worth trying. Tom only agrees if it personally advances his ego.

[Empired]

And to answer your question, no I'm not supporting that. I'm talking about those who have physical lifelong or long term illnesses who are just fucking done with life.
Landon; that's page 2 post 13 (assuming you're on the normal 10 posts per page). I had a bit above that I'd cut out but those questions were for you to answer as I was interested in seeing what you'd say, and were nothing to do with my own beliefs [emoji14]

[FlyingJesus]

Read my post I just posted xoxox
Does that bring clarification to what you just posted

No because it's still true that passive isn't anything to do with having consent or not


Don't expect him to agree - its not worth trying. Tom only agrees if it personally advances his ego.

Or perhaps I'm just interested in what's actually true rather than people changing what words mean

[Brad]

No because it's still true that passive isn't anything to do with having consent or not

I did technically quote this back on page two:

Active euthanasia

Active euthanasia occurs when the medical professionals, or another person, deliberately do something that causes the patient to die.

Passive euthanasia

Passive euthanasia occurs when the patient dies because the medical professionals either don't do something necessary to keep the patient alive, or when they stop doing something that is keeping the patient alive.


switch off life-support machines
disconnect a feeding tube
don't carry out a life-extending operation
don't give life-extending drugs



So I do know the difference between passive and active. I'd like to know where I had stated otherwise.
As all my posts regarding Passive vs. Active have been towards and surrounding this quote.

[FlyingJesus]

Your entire reasoning for saying that you can somehow be pro-active but anti-passive was to do with consent:




Why would anyone support giving people cocktails of death-inducing drugs but think turning off a computer is too much
Because when you give a cocktail to an individual with the death inducing drug.. if they agree to it- they are agreeing to do it. They are accepting it.
If they are not able to make the decision of turning off the computer, then it's involuntary, and there is no consent.

You quite literally exchanged the terms passive and nonconsensual

[Landon]

interested in seeing what you'd say, and were nothing to do with my own beliefs [emoji14]

Ohhhh okay, that makes sense to me. :)

[peteyt]

it's always going to be a difficult subject. i do believe if someone is in serious pain with no cure they should have the right. I remember when they discovered my grandads cancer had came back and was in his bones. he didn't last long after that yet there are people who last for ages in lots of

it's tricky because those who are very ill might not be able to agree to it. The guy in you before me is an interesting example. He has lots of issues yet seems very smart. He can't do the stuff he used to do and can be in pain but could possibly have a normalish life

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Brad]

Thank you to all who had participated in this Debate. It is now closed.
Remember that there will be a couple more debates posted by the beginning of next week.

http://habboxwiki.com/wiki/images/1/16/Debatestransparent.gif
To go to the Official Member's Debate: "Does Biblical Jesus Reflect Historical Jesus?", Click Here (https://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=841332)
To go to the HxEE Official Debate, Click Here (https://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=841331)