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

[Brad]

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. Also, with contributing towards the Featured Member Debate will get you this reward!

[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)?