BuyNeopointsCheap

View Poll Results: Should euthanasia be legal?

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    36 87.80%
  • No

    5 12.20%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: Should euthanasia be legal?

  1. #1

    Raj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Gender
    Location
    giraffe ribs
    Posts
    1,897
    Thanks
    3,428
    Thanked 2,521 Times in 1,422 Posts


    Downloads
    68
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    1167 Post(s)
    Time Online
    96 d 20 h 58 m
    Avg. Time Online
    1 h 31 m
    Rep Power
    8

    Should euthanasia be legal?

    I say yes, it should be, with the right regulations, those going something like this:

    -No one can decide this on their own. There has to be more than one person deciding it along with the one person.
    -If you're depressed/suicidal, there will be an effort put forward to help you.
    -If you're on some influence and you want to be euthanized, you have to get consent from sober people and no decision will be made until you yourself are sober, to prevent some certain people dying as a result of a non-functional decision.
    -If it's an old person with a disease such as Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, and if they want to die and get consent from other people as well.

    Post your reasoning and all here too ^_^
    Last edited by Raj; 12-01-2013 at 03:19 PM.

  2. BuyNeopointsCheap

  3. #2
    Broken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Gender
    Posts
    920
    Thanks
    122
    Thanked 240 Times in 126 Posts


    Downloads
    82
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Time Online
    30 d 13 h 37 m
    Avg. Time Online
    29 m
    Rep Power
    6
    I personally feel that euthanasia should be compulsory for anyone past the age of 80 that need full time care, and has this covered by the tax payer.
    I can honestly say if I had the option to be put down, at a stage where I can't look after myself the remainder of my life, then I would opt out.
    Is it really living if you're already dead?

  4. #3
    Underground King





    Drizzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Gender
    Location
    Marvin's room
    Age
    26
    Posts
    5,105
    Thanks
    2,395
    Thanked 6,890 Times in 2,023 Posts


    Downloads
    14
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    1901 Post(s)
    Time Online
    267 d 23 h 54 m
    Avg. Time Online
    4 h 14 m
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Raj View Post
    -If it's an old person with a disease such as Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, and if they want to die and get consent from other people as well.
    This isn't exactly easy to do. If someone's brain is fried they can be tricked into something. Say its someone really rich and the greedy kids want to off the dad to get the inheritance. You can't allow someone like that to make a decision if tomorrow they won't even remember they made it and they're dead, like.

    But otherwise, I personally agree with Brokens sentiments - I wouldn't want to be a burden on anyone

  5. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Gender
    Location
    United Arab Emirates
    Age
    27
    Posts
    194
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked 63 Times in 31 Posts


    Downloads
    125
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Time Online
    3 d 6 h 23 m
    Avg. Time Online
    3 m
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Raj View Post
    I say yes, it should be, with the right regulations, those going something like this:

    -No one can decide this on their own. There has to be more than one person deciding it along with the one person.
    -If you're depressed/suicidal, there will be an effort put forward to help you.
    -If you're on some influence and you want to be euthanized, you have to get consent from sober people and no decision will be made until you yourself are sober, to prevent some certain people dying as a result of a non-functional decision.
    -If it's an old person with a disease such as Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, and if they want to die and get consent from other people as well.

    Post your reasoning and all here too ^_^
    While the the concept is plausible and arguments logical, the actual practice borders on inhumanity (you will have to hire sociopaths and mass murderers).
    A doctor that specializes in Euthanasia will undoubtedly lose his humanity in the long run.
    Executing someone over a criminal offense is stressful enough but our subconscious mind can validate the killing as justice, dont see what you can argue here?
    "These people are a burden on this world so I should get rid of them?" so are plenty of others.

    I would like to believe we as a species are incapable of making life and death decisions for someone else.

    Growing up and seeing the world for what it really is, you cant help but think this 'legalization process' will bring with it tons of regulatory problems and loopholes in the law, leading to corrupt practices. Profit motivated individuals and even government organizations get swayed into corruption when they see what they stand to gain.

    To summarize my argument: Society is not ready for it because
    1) Who will be carrying out the Euthanasia on a large scale?
    2) Who qualifies for it? Who decides that you are a burden? How many victims will it have (misdiagnosis, corruption, bribery to put you on the list)?
    3) How will you make sure its carried out properly and not abused?

    How is it any different from Schindlers list? ( And they called the Nazi's inhuman )
    You do know that Hitler was on his own terms carrying out Euthanasia on the people that were a burden on the economy and the country

    Our banks, governments, military, healthcare and even the political process is corrupt.
    Will this be any different? If you say yes then you having some growing up to do

  6. #5


    Banannie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Location
    Resident Heather Mooney
    Posts
    1,365
    Thanks
    2,633
    Thanked 1,599 Times in 751 Posts


    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Time Online
    40 d 5 h 32 m
    Avg. Time Online
    52 m
    Rep Power
    6
    I believe that is something that should be allowed in only the most dire of situations. My grandmother passed on a few years ago around the same time that my grandfather did. On the day my grandfather passed, my grandmother was given some meds for anxiety and slipped and fell on her head on the side of the toilet.

    She had severe brain damage from the incident and went into a coma. She was on life support for a month before the doctors told us that her brain was pretty much turning in to mush, that she would never wake up, there were no signs that she would. We didn't have the money to continue to pay for the hospital bills, either. My family had just filed for bankruptcy a year prior.

    Because you aren't allowed to euthanize people, the only thing they could do was to take her off of her feeding tube and wait for her to die slowly. Doctors are not allowed to aid in the death of another person, so when it's 'time', they don't have any options available that aren't completely cruel.
    We live over a days drive away, and my family being on billable hours and not having any money left over after the incident, had to make the decision to go back home.
    Had euthanasia been an option, we could have spent time with her before her death.

    For some reason, our society thinks that a dying old woman, being allowed to slowly starve to death is less cruel than euthanasia. Why? I don't know.

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Banannie For This Useful Post:

    Darkspear (03-21-2014),Leah (12-06-2013),Mint (12-05-2013)

  8. #6
    Drina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Gender
    Location
    Silicon Valley (the Bay Area) California
    Age
    20
    Posts
    880
    Thanks
    1,458
    Thanked 216 Times in 156 Posts


    Downloads
    7
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    103 Post(s)
    Time Online
    36 d 14 h 29 m
    Avg. Time Online
    40 m
    Rep Power
    4
    I think it should be legal for sure when someone is brain dead in that they have no chance of ever living life again. If you're a vegetable... though I think that's either obvious or a given...

    As for a living person who has little to no chance of surviving a horrible disease, a person in great pain, they should also have the option. And it should be something they decide for themselves. I know it means that you might not be in your right mind (in the case of great pain as well as inevitable death)...but as long as nobody will greatly benefit from your passing I think the decision should be thought of as unaffected by the will of those who will outlive you. This would mean an investigation into the family and whether anyone has any reason to want you dead and if it's likely that one of them influenced your decision for that purpose.

    I guess it sort of depends on whether you think of wanting to die as abnormal in the situation at hand. Suicide is considered abnormal because it means wanting to die in circumstances that shouldn't make you feel that way (one's mental response should be different.) Whereas I'd say that it seems reasonable to me to want to die quickly and peacefully rather than slowly and in great pain if you're basically doomed to die either way. There are some people who would hold out for even the slightest chance of you staying alive but a lot of the time many of those people will be the people who don't want you to go - in a way, a (perfectly natural and acceptable) selfish reason. I don't think that what other people want should decide whether you are euthanized or not, whether well-intentioned or not.

    I also think it should not be based on whether you are a burden to others. It should be a personal choice. In the end if you are a burden to others and they are tired of it, they can stop paying for your treatment and then at that point...it's difficult, because who will pay for you? In any case, without getting into who's paying, nobody should be euthanizing people against their will, and that includes doing so so that you are no longer a burden.

    There is the case in which a terminally ill person may be tricked into requesting euthanasia...in which case I'd say that there ought to be an investigation into whether the family benefits from the ill person's passing, interviews into the family's personal relationship with the ill person, to figure out if the kids really were bratty and spoilt and whether you (ill person) would want them to inherit your things.

    Which brings to me to another case: In the case that euthanasia did become legal (I think it should) I think one should make a note in one's will, as one would when distributing belongings among family, about whether you would be interested in euthanasia in some circumstances (perhaps a checklist). This would be kept confidential and not released to family members. In the case that some family members appear to benefit from your decision to be euthanized, this could also go in your favor if you really are making the decision of your own free will and not through trickery, and will be a small protector if you are being tricked (if you never made it known to anyone, officially or unofficially, that you might want to be euthanized in some cases, then it's more likely you didn't want to be, assuming a default of "try to live as much as possible".

    Probably are some flaws in what I've just said but I'm tired. I'll get back to this soon.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Drina For This Useful Post:

    Banannie (12-09-2013)

  10. #7


    Psyduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Gender
    Location
    Cerulean City
    Posts
    536
    Thanks
    436
    Thanked 372 Times in 160 Posts


    Downloads
    46
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Time Online
    21 d 9 h 52 m
    Avg. Time Online
    20 m
    Rep Power
    5
    There is a form of legal euthanasia. It's usually performed in several states in the US in prisons to people with the death sentence. They get to choose from euthanasia, Electric chair or gas. Many choose euthanasia as they don't suffer as much as they would for the others. Fun fact.

  11. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Time Online
    16 h 52 m
    Avg. Time Online
    N/A
    Rep Power
    0
    I say no, because implementation would be difficult, and criteria for euthanasia would be fairly iffy.
    Several issues with euthanasia we have to consider:

    What if the person wishing to be euthanized is suffering from a mental illness? You say that depressed people will get help. But why would they? First they have to be diagnosed, which might not actually happen (someone might not fit all the criteria for depression). So what happens in the case of those with undetected mental illnesses? Supposedly having someone else help with the decision would solve the problem, but that puts far too much responsibility and too many expectations on the people who would be given this task. Ultimately, we're relying on others to save the people in question from themselves, which is a very faulty system, especially if you consider that this would be implemented by the government.

    Also, in the case of terminally ill people or those with difficult diseases such as those you mentioned, what happens if the family just doesn't want to let go? A person could be terminally ill and better off dead, but as a family member, it's very difficult to sign off on a relative's death.

    We also have to consider people's motives. Why do they want to die? 66% of patient requests are because they do not want to be a burden. If two-thirds of these people want to die in order to stop being a burden, I think we have to look at some other issues, such as the factors making death seem preferable to life as a burden.

  12. #9
    bsbgales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Gender
    Posts
    97
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts


    Downloads
    10
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Time Online
    21 h 38 m
    Avg. Time Online
    1 m
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Raj View Post
    I say yes, it should be, with the right regulations, those going something like this:

    -No one can decide this on their own. There has to be more than one person deciding it along with the one person.
    -If you're depressed/suicidal, there will be an effort put forward to help you.
    -If you're on some influence and you want to be euthanized, you have to get consent from sober people and no decision will be made until you yourself are sober, to prevent some certain people dying as a result of a non-functional decision.
    -If it's an old person with a disease such as Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, and if they want to die and get consent from other people as well.

    Post your reasoning and all here too ^_^
    I think it could be a human solution for certain deceases, if living the life the way it is causes you so much pain that you cannot do anything to relieve your self, yes, it should be a solution. Awful, but sometimes death is better.

  13. #10



    Maths's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Gender
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    892
    Thanks
    673
    Thanked 1,485 Times in 530 Posts


    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    432 Post(s)
    Time Online
    59 d 20 h 57 m
    Avg. Time Online
    1 h 2 m
    Rep Power
    6
    Quebec has proposed a bill like this and in the end it didn't get voted because the current Government will have an election soon, but the project was relatively received well for the majority of the province deputies.

    However, it is extremely strict. You must have an incurable disease that will, in the end, cause your death. A doctor must confirm that you understand the situation and that you are aware of the consequences, which means that someone with a disease that affected their state of mind couldn't receive the treatment. Someone in a coma couldn't as well. Contentment can only be given by the person and the person only.

    Also after the first doctor confirmed that you understood everything, another doctor has to confirm again that you are not in a situation where a part of your family is pressuring you for money/legacy/whatever. They have to talk about it with your family but the choice is yours entirely.

    Tbh it's a really well written bill and it's sad that it died because of the election, but I'm hoping that the subject will be voted soon enough, because in my opinion, letting someone suffer when they already know they're going to die is horrible.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •