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

[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 **** 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