Euthanasia - Legal or Illegal?

[Neuropathy]

I agree with euthanasia, so long as there are regulations.

In the case of the old, or sick.... If there is guaranteed no hope for recovery, it should be given as an option to the person or the legal representative of the person. My grandfather had alzhiemer's for YEARS. He lived for almost five years AFTER he stopped recognizing everyone he used to know. A year and a half before he died, he had to be bound to his bed because he was so unstable. I WISH it had been an option, because I'm pretty sure at that point my family, including my grandmother, would have agreed to it. In the end, his body shut down, but they had to stop his heart manually. His heart just wouldn't stop, even after he was brain dead and his other organs had shut down.

In the case of depression, there should be some limits. If a person is depressed and thinks they have no options left, they should be allowed to opt for medical euthanasia. BUT! In the option for medical euthanasia comes certain requirements. A 6 month wait period with counseling and possible medication. IF the person refuses these regulations, or doesn't follow any of the regulations that might be put in place... they are denied the chance for medical euthanasia and cannot reapply for another 6 months.

It is a very touchy subject, but I agree with the statement that we are the one's in charge of our own lives.

In the case of religious objections to the option(not going into the sin of choosing to die)... how is this any different than the God given free will we already have?

[utahclock]

I had to put a Dog down recently although I teared up and cried for about 2 hrs while waiting for the vet to test her. she was a puppy and was parvo positive she had a low chance for survival they stated about 20%. since she had not yet had her shots. I would rather have her put to sleep, instead of vomitting till she died.

[caonima]

I personally think that euthanasia should be illegal as it halts scientific research.
If people can escape pain so easily, there will be no need for further research as it seems much better off to take a simple injection than pump money into finding cures.
We are being selfish to take euthanasia as it denies our future generations of surviving any diseases due to a stop in further medical research.

[Chi]

I personally think that euthanasia should be illegal as it halts scientific research.
If people can escape pain so easily, there will be no need for further research as it seems much better off to take a simple injection than pump money into finding cures.
We are being selfish to take euthanasia as it denies our future generations of surviving any diseases due to a stop in further medical research.

How does it halt medical research? Do you think they really experiment with humans first? Usually experiments begin with cell research (i.e the cells are harvested and reactions are tested in the lab) then it progresses to animal research and then once that is tested (and that is after rigorous testing in both cell and animal research) and then only small trial groups are offered.

You go to the doctor receive the news you have cancer and that even with chemo you have 2 years to live. You don't opt for euthanasia straight away ;/ no logical person will do that. They'd probably consider it when they can't function on their own or important organs begin to fail (Which may not happen until 1 year and 9 months for example). Secondly the new treatment would be opted for at the detection stage. "You have only 2 years to live, however there is an experimental treatment that may extend that to 10 years, would you like to partake in this experiment" (in lamest terms). People who have a general understanding of science may opt to take that chance. Of course there will be others that reject the treatment but they may also reject regular treatment (such as chemo) and just go on living until it becomes unbearable.

[mindflare]

no real argument from me...it's a personal choice. if someone else says 'well, i want the government to decide for me'-that's their personal choice. i'm not going to allow some other entity to make that choice for me.

[caonima]

How does it halt medical research? Do you think they really experiment with humans first? Usually experiments begin with cell research (i.e the cells are harvested and reactions are tested in the lab) then it progresses to animal research and then once that is tested (and that is after rigorous testing in both cell and animal research) and then only small trial groups are offered.

You go to the doctor receive the news you have cancer and that even with chemo you have 2 years to live. You don't opt for euthanasia straight away ;/ no logical person will do that. They'd probably consider it when they can't function on their own or important organs begin to fail (Which may not happen until 1 year and 9 months for example). Secondly the new treatment would be opted for at the detection stage. "You have only 2 years to live, however there is an experimental treatment that may extend that to 10 years, would you like to partake in this experiment" (in lamest terms). People who have a general understanding of science may opt to take that chance. Of course there will be others that reject the treatment but they may also reject regular treatment (such as chemo) and just go on living until it becomes unbearable.

I think you don't get what I'm trying to say. I am saying that once people have a easier and cheaper method to escape pain, the researchers won't have the motivation to save those people since they give their lives up without any fight.

you can also argue that a person at last stage of cancer has to take euthanasia as there's no other way. That's is based on the assumption that medical research won't advance. Think of it few years ago when SARS occurred. If everybody assumed at that time that the disease was incurable, there will be no cure today for that virus.

The future is full of possibility and to give up your life so easily is a waste. You won't know whether there will be a cure tomorrow for your disease and you will die in vain.

[Sci_Girl]

I am saying that once people have a easier and cheaper method to escape pain, the researchers won't have the motivation to save those people since they give their lives up without any fight.

The researchers do not use people on the type of research you are thinking of, they use cell cultures of organs, rats, mice, and monkeys. They do not need a death bed on the last stages of cancer patient to make research happen. The subjects that are part of on going drug trials are not on their death bed, they are functioning individuals in candidate stages for therapy not on their last stages of their afflicted condition. Then there is the matter of donating the body to scientific research. Research continues despite those dieing. If someone else wants to end their life via euthanasia, through their choice, then there are countless millions who are still leftover sick and dieing. The route of Euthanaisa is not taken the second there is a diagnosis, sure some people may take it out of fear of the unknown but the others tend to want live their life as long as they physically can until their condition(s) takes too much of a toll on their body. As long as there are millions of sick people in the world the money will be there and the research will continue, it is the money those big companies want not a prosperous disease free world it is entirely the money.

[caonima]

The researchers do not use people on the type of research you are thinking of, they use cell cultures of organs, rats, mice, and monkeys. They do not need a death bed on the last stages of cancer patient to make research happen. The subjects that are part of on going drug trials are not on their death bed, they are functioning individuals in candidate stages for therapy not on their last stages of their afflicted condition. Then there is the matter of donating the body to scientific research. Research continues despite those dieing. If someone else wants to end their life via euthanasia, through their choice, then there are countless millions who are still leftover sick and dieing. The route of Euthanaisa is not taken the second there is a diagnosis, sure some people may take it out of fear of the unknown but the others tend to want live their life as long as they physically can until their condition(s) takes too much of a toll on their body. As long as there are millions of sick people in the world the money will be there and the research will continue, it is the money those big companies want not a prosperous disease free world it is entirely the money.

I will have to agree that researchers use animals for medical research but I have to disagree on how millions of of sick people in the world will generate the money for medical research.

Think of it this way, people that have hope for tomorrow are those either optimistic despite worsening conditions or they know there's a cure (already developed) just that they have to wait for it. Let me ask you 1 question. If one day, "touchwood + god bless", you are at last stage of cancer and you are about to take euthanasia. Somebody comes and tell you whether they can do a test on you. If it succeeds, you are able to live longer whereas if it fails you will still die. Will you strive for that 0.0001% chance to live?

If you take euthanasia, you are giving up on yourself. I reiterate my previous argument, there will always be a chance a cure be found for medical research the next day. Wouldn't you feel short-changed if you happened to give up and not persevere to wait for it?

Believe it or not, there will always be a chance for a cure to last stage cancer. We will never know. Just like our forefathers, no one believed that there's a cure to first stage cancer and felt that those that were diagnosed with cancer were on their deathbed preparing to die. However, we held on to find a cure to first stage of cancer, then subsequently cure to second stage of cancer. Think of it, if we had legalise euthanasia at that time, there's wouldn't even be cure for first stage cancer as people widely believed that first stage cancer was equivalent to 1 step in grave.

[Sci_Girl]

I have to disagree on how millions of of sick people in the world will generate the money for medical research.

What? The millions of sick people in the world do not generate money for medical research? Where do you think the research purpose comes from? Only in death bed patients?

you are at last stage of cancer and you are about to take euthanasia. Somebody comes and tell you whether they can do a test on you. If it succeeds, you are able to live longer whereas if it fails you will still die. Will you strive for that 0.0001% chance to live?

Yeah sure I will take the last minute "cure", if it fails then I have lost nothing. If it works then I get a undisclosed amount of time, maybe a day maybe a week or two of lessened cancer cells until they mutate again and take over back to their original aggressive stage. I would appease the people around me, should they be opposed to my choice of euthanasia, and the doctors and offer my body to this supposed cure. Should it not work then I gave it a chance but it failed and I will continue with my plan of euthanasia. If your body is in a continual decline because it is being eaten from the inside out due to metastatic cancer then sure a last minute injection could happen but that does not mean the person should continue to sit there wallowing in extreme pain (talking maxed out morphine pain) just because somewhere in the near future there could be something that helps. Some people cannot handle the pain, which you seem to be ignoring, and want to have it stop because one cannot reserve the effects of late stage very aggressive cancer, if caught early is a different story as remission can occur but death-bed stage you cannot reverse as the cancer cells are just too far gone to stop.

Just like our forefathers, no one believed that there's a cure to first stage cancer and felt that those that were diagnosed with cancer were on their deathbed preparing to die.

They did die, and much quicker because they had nothing to work with like what we have now. That long ago there was often the request to die, either being shot or lethal injection. Later years people had more hope because medical research advanced and people now do not automatically think "well cancer is the end of the world time for me to die", people have more hope now than they had before they will stick it out as long as they can. But once that certain point hits, which is individual for each patient, they will say their time is up and they are comfortable with the thought of it being over instead of being in such pain and hence may opt for euthanasia instead of dieing a very painful death.

we held on to find a cure to first stage of cancer, then subsequently cure to second stage of cancer. Think of it, if we had legalise euthanasia at that time, there's wouldn't even be cure for first stage cancer as people widely believed that first stage cancer was equivalent to 1 step in grave.

You are implying we have a cure for cancer. That is a big claim so it requires big evidence, provide it. Chemotherapy is not a cure, it can provide remission in early stages but it does not cure anything.

[caonima]

What? The millions of sick people in the world do not generate money for medical research? Where do you think the research purpose comes from? Only in death bed patients?

So, are you trying to say that medical research is still advancing and may one day find a cure to cancer? If that is so, why bother to apply euthanasia when money generated from millions of people can fund a medical research which may find a cure to your illness?

Yeah sure I will take the last minute "cure", if it fails then I have lost nothing. If it works then I get a undisclosed amount of time, maybe a day maybe a week or two of lessened cancer cells until they mutate again and take over back to their original aggressive stage. I would appease the people around me, should they be opposed to my choice of euthanasia, and the doctors and offer my body to this supposed cure. Should it not work then I gave it a chance but it failed and I will continue with my plan of euthanasia. If your body is in a continual decline because it is being eaten from the inside out due to metastatic cancer then sure a last minute injection could happen but that does not mean the person should continue to sit there wallowing in extreme pain (talking maxed out morphine pain) just because somewhere in the near future there could be something that helps. Some people cannot handle the pain, which you seem to be ignoring, and want to have it stop because one cannot reserve the effects of late stage very aggressive cancer, if caught early is a different story as remission can occur but death-bed stage you cannot reverse as the cancer cells are just too far gone to stop.

As I have said, you are assuming that "one cannot reverse the effects of late stage very aggressive cancer". Likewise, a few decades back, if people also assumed that first stage cancer is "death-bed stage" which "you cannot reverse as the cancer cells are just too far gone to stop", there would be no radiotherapy, or other forms of methods for a remission to occur. There will certainly be no forms of remission for cancer, and people will most likely take euthanasia as they find the future seems dim. Even a recent example such as SARS can prove that there are indeed cures to illness that are presumed as fatal and beyond cure.

Also, I assume that you are ignoring the pains of a patient to long for more time to stay with his/her family. You may be guarding the interest for people who cannot handle the pain but try to look around whether it is in online cancer forums or cancer wards in hospital. There are countless number of people willing to give up all their fortune for just 1 more day to stay on this earth with their loved ones.

They did die, and much quicker because they had nothing to work with like what we have now. That long ago there was often the request to die, either being shot or lethal injection. Later years people had more hope because medical research advanced and people now do not automatically think "well cancer is the end of the world time for me to die", people have more hope now than they had before they will stick it out as long as they can. But once that certain point hits, which is individual for each patient, they will say their time is up and they are comfortable with the thought of it being over instead of being in such pain and hence may opt for euthanasia instead of dieing a very painful death.

Well, I beg to differ. Indeed, there were requests to die but that was the time science was not developed, people were superstitious, believing in gods. Take for example, during the Black Death, there was a certain group called the flagellants. They believed that the Black Death was God's punishment. They resigned to their own fate and begged for God's mercy. It may seem unbelievable as we are at the 21st century where science is heading the way. There's nothing as impossible in the eyes of science.

Let's discuss how medical research has advanced. In the eyes of economists, when there's demand, there will be supply . If everybody resigned to their own fate, not demanding for any cure to fatal illness such as malaria, there will be no supply of advanced medical research as researchers do not have the motivation to find a cure.

Today, after we had seen numerous cases of patients dying in pain with cancer, we start to promote the use of euthanasia as a way to escape pain. But, let us not forget our forefathers who persevere for a cure to flu which may seem hardly a fatal illness now but was a illness that killed millions of people long ago.

Also, if you do not believe in a cure for cancer, here's a an article published 8 hours ago for you to read.
(you need an account to see links)

Although, it is still at experimental stage, it is certainly a step to curing cancer which makes the argument that people who do not want to suffer in pain from cancer can choose to take euthanasia invalid.