Should a person who is suffering from a terminal illness be able to end their life?

Now, I don't want this to sound too controversial or apologies if it offends you. But I am interested in listening to views on this :).

Personally, I find it a difficult one to have a view on. Part of me says that, yes if you are suffering from a terminal illness where death is inevitable, you should have to choice to say yes, flick the switch. However, it's not always as simple as that, that person may be in such a state of knowing that they're going to die, that they just want to go, not really thinking about what they would actually want.

It's hard to say, sat here as a healthy young guy (touch wood) but, thinking about it, if this was me, I don't think I would choose to take my own life, even if I was going to die or not. I would think in my mind that I AM going to survive, or atleast make my last moments worth it to me and my loved ones.

What are you views? :P

Personally, I believe in euthanasia dependent on circumstances.

If I were going to die, in a lot of pain and would be suffering for the rest of my life - hell yeah I'm going to want to go.
Just as were I unable to do anything for myself I would prefer to be 'put down'.

However, if I have an illness that I'm not really suffering from, that could somewhat be cured before I go or there is a possibility of survival, then surviving is the better option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannah

Personally, I believe in euthanasia dependent on circumstances.

If I were going to die, in a lot of pain and would be suffering for the rest of my life - hell yeah I'm going to want to go.
Just as were I unable to do anything for myself I would prefer to be 'put down'.

However, if I have an illness that I'm not really suffering from, that could somewhat be cured before I go or there is a possibility of survival, then surviving is the better option.

---

doesn't terminal mean they WILL die... no cure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skandair

doesn't terminal mean they WILL die... no cure?

---

While it certainly means that death will happen despite treatment and such, that doesn't mean that all terminally ill people will die immediately or within the say, six month period. ;)

Idk i always find it completely ridiculous that you arent allowed to choose what to do with your own life...

Ive always supported it amd always will

We treat our pets with more respect than our fellow humans. When whats ahead of you is going to nothing but pain and suffering, lost of bodily functions and a terrible death. Your gonna want the easy way out.

If your going to suffer, then you should be allowed to end it all when you feel fit.

If its something that can be "cured" or will end up being a quick sudden death. Just go with it and live.

Always interests me how liberals/the left are fully for euthanasia (despite the apparent risks of an older person feeling or being forced into committing the act against their real wishes) yet at the same time if you suggest bringing back the death penalty for the most evil people walking the planet (with a trial by jury, numerous appeals etc) they'll scream the house down about how it isn't worth it because of the risk of innocent life being lost. How hypocritical.

As it happens, I support both. You (if innocent) own your life and if guilty the state should own your life. At the moment it appears to be literally the other way around or at least it will be if euthanasia is permitted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Always interests me how liberals/the left are fully for euthanasia (despite the apparent risks of an older person feeling or being forced into committing the act against their real wishes) yet at the same time if you suggest bringing back the death penalty for the most evil people walking the planet (with a trial by jury, numerous appeals etc) they'll scream the house down about how it isn't worth it because of the risk of innocent life being lost. How hypocritical.

As it happens, I support both. You (if innocent) own your life and if guilty the state should own your life. At the moment it appears to be literally the other way around or at least it will be if euthanasia is permitted.

---

The difference is choosing to take your own life and someone else choosing to take your life.

I'm strongly against the idea that someone else should have the power to decide that you are going to die. And, as a judge sentencing someone to death, what makes them different from the murderer sat in the chair? Power corrupts. And having the decision of whether or not to end another person's life is a lot of power. Anyway if the court is allowed to kill people, why aren't criminals? We shouldn't be asking them to stop doing the very thing we do.

If someone chooses to kill themselves though, that's up to them. And making it illegal to do so won't stop them, it'll just mean they'll find another (often more painful less humane) way.

I don't really share the same view if I'm honest.

I am a Christian so I believe that only God should take life, its not your role to play God and decide when you leave this earth. Besides, what if at the last minute a cure is found or infact you don't actually die. My friends mum was told her cancer was terminal, but she survived, she was diagnosed wrongly, and she did take the NHS to court and was awarded a sum of money. Doctors aren't always right.

Yes I believe you should be able to end your life should you so wish in these circumstances, or if you're unable to make the decision where you're so ill then the family can make the decision. I've heard people say that it is against gods will for people to be allowed to die before it is their 'time' to die, what about people with different diseases, cancers etc who are given treatment against what ever illness they have, surely that too is going against gods will if the illness could have killed you. Surely that was god telling you your time is up? It's so hypercritical its unreal but anyway, I do believe in it and that there should be strict guidelines to govern it.

I didn't read the above post (^).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jssy

I am a Christian so I believe that only God should take life, its not your role to play God and decide when you leave this earth. Besides, what if at the last minute a cure is found or infact you don't actually die. My friends mum was told her cancer was terminal, but she survived, she was diagnosed wrongly, and she did take the NHS to court and was awarded a sum of money. Doctors aren't always right.

---

So what gives you, or any doctor the right to give you treatment against an illness to keep you here. If you believe in a 'god' then surely it is down to them and we're acting against this power to keep you here when they've given you your time to die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Headlines

Yes I believe you should be able to end your life should you so wish in these circumstances, or if you're unable to make the decision where you're so ill then the family can make the decision. I've heard people say that it is against gods will for people to be allowed to die before it is their 'time' to die, what about people with different diseases, cancers etc who are given treatment against what ever illness they have, surely that too is going against gods will if the illness could have killed you. Surely that was god telling you your time is up? It's so hypercritical its unreal but anyway, I do believe in it and that there should be strict guidelines to govern it.

I didn't read the above post (^).
So what gives you, or any doctor the right to give you treatment against an illness to keep you here. If you believe in a 'god' then surely it is down to them and we're acting against this power to keep you here when they've given you your time to die.

---

I could go more into it but I wouldn't class myself very strict. Obviously if I experienced it myself I might think different but I just think that I wouldn't. People who don't have the mental capacity have been forced into euthanasia which is wrong. I'm not telling anyone what to do with theirs lives, as they are the ones that have to live with it if they are terminally ill and enduring a horrible illness, everyone has a choice of what they do, we were given free will. But, myself I don't think I would choose when I die, I'd allow nature to take its cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jssy

I could go more into it but I wouldn't class myself very strict. Obviously if I experienced it myself I might think different but I just think that I wouldn't. People who don't have the mental capacity have been forced into euthanasia which is wrong. I'm not telling anyone what to do with theirs lives, as they are the ones that have to live with it if they are terminally ill and enduring a horrible illness, everyone has a choice of what they do, we were given free will. But, myself I don't think I would choose when I die, I'd allow nature to take its cause.

---

That's fair enough, but do you go as far to say for instance 'I have a headache, I won't take any paracetamol as god gave this to me'? I think if you believe in that then god gives you these pains and illnesses for a reason. For arguments sake, say you were diagnosed with a terminal cancer at the age of 30 and doctors said that they could give you treatment that could prolong your life for another 20 years, would you take that treatment? As surely that is god telling you that's your time to go. In the same way, if you do have a terminal illness and you are inevitably going to die, what is the point in prolonging the suffering, why can you or your family not take the decision to end the life you're ultimately going to face in far greater pain.

I'm not attacking you by the way, I'm just using your quotes to get my point across x

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Headlines

That's fair enough, but do you go as far to say for instance 'I have a headache, I won't take any paracetamol as god gave this to me'? I think if you believe in that then god gives you these pains and illnesses for a reason. For arguments sake, say you were diagnosed with a terminal cancer at the age of 30 and doctors said that they could give you treatment that could prolong your life for another 20 years, would you take that treatment? As surely that is god telling you that's your time to go. In the same way, if you do have a terminal illness and you are inevitably going to die, what is the point in prolonging the suffering, why can you or your family not take the decision to end the life you're ultimately going to face in far greater pain.

I'm not attacking you by the way, I'm just using your quotes to get my point across x

---

When I get pain I don't usually take painkillers I try my best not to, but with my own health I need medical intervention. Getting the flu is a danger to my life because of the problems with my blood cells so in a way I think if there is a God he intended us to make use of Science. I think its a grey area really because obviously I wouldn't like to see any of my family in pain so I see your point, idk its a strange debate really. If people take their life then its their choice at the end of the day, I thin back to when we didn't have this use of technology. I studied a case in ethics about a woman who was denied the right to end her life and in the end she said she was thankful that the courts denied her to do that because although she was in pain she spent more time with her children, she was just made more comfortable in her last days.We also looked at morphine shortening a persons life. Some doctors have been accused of euthanasia, but even though it shortens someones life it makes them more painfree. idk really like this argument has been done over and over, sometimes I doubt this thinking this world is too complex for a being like God and I can see the pros in taking your life if you don't want your loved ones to see you in a bad way, and instead want them to have good memories of you, but I also see flaws in my argument and the cons of taking your own life by euthanasia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jssy

When I get pain I don't usually take painkillers I try my best not to, but with my own health I need medical intervention. Getting the flu is a danger to my life because of the problems with my blood cells so in a way I think if there is a God he intended us to make use of Science. I think its a grey area really because obviously I wouldn't like to see any of my family in pain so I see your point, idk its a strange debate really. If people take their life then its their choice at the end of the day, I thin back to when we didn't have this use of technology. I studied a case in ethics about a woman who was denied the right to end her life and in the end she said she was thankful that the courts denied her to do that because although she was in pain she spent more time with her children, she was just made more comfortable in her last days.We also looked at morphine shortening a persons life. Some doctors have been accused of euthanasia, but even though it shortens someones life it makes them more painfree. idk really like this argument has been done over and over, sometimes I doubt this thinking this world is too complex for a being like God and I can see the pros in taking your life if you don't want your loved ones to see you in a bad way, and instead want them to have good memories of you, but I also see flaws in my argument and the cons of taking your own life by euthanasia

---

omg it's so frustrating because there are so many different angles to look at this argument from and I can see the case for many of them. My friends had this debate a little while ago, if God created the world in 7 days or how ever long it was and wanted us to have the technology today, surely he would have given it to us? Or, did we evolve from micro-organisms and as we develop and evolve ourselves, so does technology. Which then kind of contradicts both arguments in a way, if you believe in the evolution of man kind and technology then you don't believe in god so the whole argumente is flawed.

I do like your comment about morphine though, my nan was 86 when she passed away and she died of COPD, she was in hospital for about a week and the didn't expect her to survive that long. In the end my mum, aunts and uncle took the decision with the advice from the doctors that they would administer a large dose of morphine which would ensure that my nan was pain free and that it would slowly overcome her body and shut it down as she was so weak. So I see both points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Headlines

omg it's so frustrating because there are so many different angles to look at this argument from and I can see the case for many of them. My friends had this debate a little while ago, if God created the world in 7 days or how ever long it was and wanted us to have the technology today, surely he would have given it to us? Or, did we evolve from micro-organisms and as we develop and evolve ourselves, so does technology. Which then kind of contradicts both arguments in a way, if you believe in the evolution of man kind and technology then you don't believe in god so the whole argumente is flawed.

I do like your comment about morphine though, my nan was 86 when she passed away and she died of COPD, she was in hospital for about a week and the didn't expect her to survive that long. In the end my mum, aunts and uncle took the decision with the advice from the doctors that they would administer a large dose of morphine which would ensure that my nan was pain free and that it would slowly overcome her body and shut it down as she was so weak. So I see both points.

---

Yeah sometimes its the best thing to do, I saw my grandad suffer to much with his cancer and it wasn't nice to see at all

If they can think rationally for themself and meaning isn't being inferred by traumatised family members then yes people should be allowed to choose to die.


~~from phone

As a simple question the answer is obviously yes. Regardless of you having a terminal or incapacitating illness, I believe you have the right to govern your life in any way you see fit, as long as it doesn't impact those same rights for others. But in legislative terms, especially in this circumstance, it’s a minefield of trying to balance the human right to die and the abuses which could occur if the laws introduced are poorly constructed.

I'd like to think that we are on a whole benevolent, and would only take such measures to end the suffering of another; but at the same time we're quite a selfish species and when money and power come into the picture, morality has a tendency to fly out the window.

While I think the rights and protections should be in place for those who wish to take such action when their abilities to do so are diminished, the manner and timing at which they come into play has to be considered carefully. If it can be argued that the current laws are potentially saving more lives now in comparison to the potential fallout from new laws being introduced, I'll accept it as a reasonable and necessary restriction of our rights for the time being.