Euthanasia - Legal or Illegal?

[Chi]

I don't get your argument.

Both Sci_Girl and Myself are very "Pro-scientific research". I don't see why Euthanasia will stop any scientific research.....

Comparing scientist to a group of people who lived during the 1300 is an extremely weak argument. If you haven't noticed scientist in all fields are seeking some sort of scientific truth and understanding. They have NEVER accepted the argument 'god did it' and after meeting some influential psychologists, biologist and physicists they aren't going to stop any time soon.

At the moment there is no cure for cancer, that article I'm fairly sure I saw 2 years ago and there were long threads on how it was not 100% accurate and over hyped by the media. If you want to follow research you should be reading medical journals. As a psychology student I don't particular follow that line of research but if that is something you are interested in I suggest you follow one or two journals.

There will ALWAYS be a demand for research in medical field. Because there will always be supply to extend life/prevent death. Just because people on their death bed want to be sent off peacefully instead of in agony and pain over extended periods...I don't know it just won't stop research.

[lenny]

Here are my thoughts, apologizes for a bad translation. Euthanasia is good, because when people are in the crippling pain of hell, or paralyzed from the neck down with a terrible quality of life. His every moment is painful or numb completely and the moments is very debilitating mentally and emotionally complete. If they are suffering so many people Should have mercy on them and let them end their lives because they want the best for them.

[caonima]

I don't get your argument.

Both Sci_Girl and Myself are very "Pro-scientific research". I don't see why Euthanasia will stop any scientific research.....

Comparing scientist to a group of people who lived during the 1300 is an extremely weak argument. If you haven't noticed scientist in all fields are seeking some sort of scientific truth and understanding. They have NEVER accepted the argument 'god did it' and after meeting some influential psychologists, biologist and physicists they aren't going to stop any time soon.

At the moment there is no cure for cancer, that article I'm fairly sure I saw 2 years ago and there were long threads on how it was not 100% accurate and over hyped by the media. If you want to follow research you should be reading medical journals. As a psychology student I don't particular follow that line of research but if that is something you are interested in I suggest you follow one or two journals.

There will ALWAYS be a demand for research in medical field. Because there will always be supply to extend life/prevent death. Just because people on their death bed want to be sent off peacefully instead of in agony and pain over extended periods...I don't know it just won't stop research.

What we are talking here are the medical field researchers not any scientist (eg. theoretical physicist). Like I have said at the first post I made, making euthanasia legal will encourage people to take their own loves when they are in pain or what so ever. Therefore, medical researchers do not have the motivation or the goal towards finding a cure to any fatal disease since people do not have the will to live. I have come up with a lot of examples and if you place the idea of making euthanasia legal in any time in the last few decades, we would not have found cures to disease such as sars, malaria, etc.

They have NEVER accepted the argument 'god did it'

Since you say that scientists will never accept the answer that god did it, why did you bring in the example of people being able to take their own lives in the past before science flourish? Historical records have shown that people believed that God made them ill and they had no other to go against the will of the God. They took their own lives in despair. How can you compare them with modern civilised humans that are capable of pursuing greater knowledge without the constraints of religion?

At the moment there is no cure for cancer, that article I'm fairly sure I saw 2 years ago and there were long threads on how it was not 100% accurate and over hyped by the media.

I believe it is another article about cure for cancer from fish, the article I have posted is fairly new.
(you need an account to see links)

There will ALWAYS be a demand for research in medical field.

You claim that there will always be a demand for research in medical field but where does the demand for cure to fatal disease comes from? The people that are living or the patients/loved ones of patients that are about to die?

Just because people on their death bed want to be sent off peacefully instead of in agony and pain over extended periods

If you make euthanasia legal, will the people living still consider finding a cure to cancer when there is always an easy way out by injecting one to escape sufferings? Everybody will be thinking of being sent off peacefully instead of undergoing the agony of persevering for cures to their disease. Then, how does one achieve cure to any fatal disease when no one is encouraging you to research on one since everybody just wants to die peacefully, not eager for any cures to the disease.

Cures do not come dropping from the sky. There must be a certain force pushing the researchers forward to research for cures. One excellent example is the cure for animal disease. For the past few decades, due to the legalising of euthanasia on pets, no cures have come out for the treatment of fatal disease in pets. Up till now, there's not even a cure to rabies, a fatal disease. If you claim that scientists "are seeking some sort of scientific truth and understanding", why is it that there's still no cures for fatal diseases in pets?

[Sci_Girl]

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?

I do believe we can make advancements to help early stage cancer detection and early treatment, but I am hard pressed to say that there will be "curing cancer" occurring. Cancer is not one select condition it is several types and genetically operate in different ways and curing one may happen but all I am not so sure about. The true destruction involved with cancer cells is astounding, it is one thing to eradicate the cells causing the problems and another problem to prevent them from reactivating, and another problem to regenerate whole organs should they be completely obliterated.

But I am asking what your opinion is of where scientific research comes from...why it happens in your opinion because based on your wording you are making it sound like the only reason research is occurring is because people are on their death bed. And based on your wording if the people about to die are given the option of euthanasia there goes our chance at research. It does not work that way, research is based off of people who are at all stages of illness and if a patient dies there are still millions of sick people to give reason to have research happen. So I am asking where you think the point of research is coming from.

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.

That is exactly what I am referring to. There was no advanced science back in the day, people believed in things that were occurring at the time because that is what they had. They felt that if they got cancer they would die plain and simple. The advancements were made because people became smarter, technology grew...over time. It did not happen in the span of a single patient undergoing their cancer treatment.

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.

The supply and demand has to do with money. People can demand all they want but if there is no money involved for big pharma companies they are not going to be interested. I mentioned that in my post. It is about money, the economics revolved around money. The demand is for money, the supply comes from sick people. The more sick individuals the more money is made.

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.

I asked for the proof of a cure, not another hypothesis in testing. That is very easy to find as there are many avenues and rat studies of cancer killing agents. I am referring to the cure, you said "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." which implies that you knew of a cure for first stage cancer. I am looking for the complex journal article of this because as a future researcher I am interested in knowing what this cure is.

Like I have said at the first post I made, making euthanasia legal will encourage people to take their own loves when they are in pain or what so ever. Therefore, medical researchers do not have the motivation or the goal towards finding a cure to any fatal disease since people do not have the will to live.

You are making it seem like you believe that all sick patients are opting for euthanasia. Realistically we are talking about a subset of ill patients. There will be patients who have their skin coming off, lungs full of fluid and morphine maxed out because their cancer or illness is just too strong for even our most advanced of medicines. If they want to sign a piece of paper allowing euthanasia then they should be allowed to. Euthanasia is a type of DNR, the DNR should a patient sign one is a legal document that physicians are binded to.

As for malaria I am assuming you are aware that it is a 3rd world disease that was cured because 1st world countries saw that you could make money from the pills. The cure had nothing to do with people not having the will to live, they literally died because they had nothing out in the bush or jungle and those who had something decided they could make a buck off of it so they did.

Since you say that scientists will never accept the answer that god did it, why did you bring in the example of people being able to take their own lives in the past before science flourish?

Chi is talking about scientists not believing in "God did it". The people did, that is why they killed themselves. But scientists were skeptical that God was causing the issues, they wanted a reason for it and in searching they discovered the route cause in conditions was things like bacteria, or viruses, or fungi, or parasites even though the people still believed it was God's hand.

I believe it is another article about cure for cancer from fish, the article I have posted is fairly new.

The first line of the not so new article from 2010 states, "he next treatment for cancer might come from fish says a new research report published in the March 2010 print edition of the FASEB Journal.". The words "might come" implies they have another idea, not a cure. If you want a cure it must say they have cured cancer in a patient, have documented it, and another lab has been able to replicate the exact experiment. Otherwise what is left is a hypothesis, nothing wrong with a hypothesis if it is robust but an idea is still an idea and not concrete proof.

Everybody will be thinking of being sent off peacefully instead of undergoing the agony of persevering for cures to their disease.

So people should suffer, because you believe if they suffer long enough a cure will be found. The way you are wording things makes it sound like we have a cure for all patients and that they should just wait through the pain because they will get their cure if they wait. You are saying this as though when a patient has cancer, is about to die, that they need to wait it out like some timed game or something that at the end just before they die they get their injection of magic "cure all" because they have been waiting. I am just saying this is what it sounds like by what you are saying. Is this a correct interpretation of what you are saying? Or is research still occurring even though patients are dieing anyway after living through the agony?

For the past few decades, due to the legalising of euthanasia on pets, no cures have come out for the treatment of fatal disease in pets. Up till now, there's not even a cure to rabies, a fatal disease. If you claim that scientists "are seeking some sort of scientific truth and understanding", why is it that there's still no cures for fatal diseases in pets?

Rabies has a cure, it involves a treatment of rabies immunoglobulin (called HRIG) and vaccinces involving HDEC and PCEC methods.