Right. Euthanasia need not be mandatory for my statement to hold true.
It sends a very negative message to people that suicide is laudable and a legitimate answer to problems.
Assisted suicide does not legitimize or praise suicide. The only way it would make suicide laudable would be if it were made mandatory.
People die. It does not matter what your personal feelings are regarding death. It is unavoidable.
I don't like this argument. It makes it seem like doctors can now ease up a little and maybe not take as measures as before with the knowledge that their patient may elect for euthanasia.
Why would it let doctors ease up? You just assume that doctors will suggest it as an option. The issue right now is that doctors cannot even discuss it with a patient when the patient brings it up. Liability prevents them from even addressing the issue of suicide. Ignoring a problem, won't make it go away.
Can you clarify this? I feel like if it means what I think it means, you're wrong.
If a person is suffering tremendously from a terminal illness, suicide will be in the back of their mind. The conviction to carry it out is another matter. Since suicide is taboo, people bottle up everything. Openly discussing it can actually help prevent suicides.
I could honestly care less about UK taxpayers. I'm arguing from a point of view that values life.
The purpose of life is to live, because everyone dies.
If you truly value it, then you should recognize there are certain kinds of life that are not worth living. Even with euthanasia prohibited, hospitals can still "pull the plug" on living patients based on family consent. Even non-terminal patients who suffer from chronic pain commit suicide. Even if the life expectancy is inaccurate, extending the life of a terminal patient just so that they can be in pain for a while longer makes no sense.
This really should not be a reason to kill someone.
You are not killing them. A doctor is assisting the patient with suicide. Since suicide is taboo, many people try and fail by themselves. These failed attempts only push the individual further into depression. If these people could have opened up to a doctor earlier, they would have received counseling.
They are going to die anyways. It seems like you cannot accept the fact that people die.
Exactly. When you equate animals with humans in situations like these, things go awry.
Why do things go awry? Plenty of people treat their pets as family. What is difference between one family member and the other?
The article wasn't really relevant. If doctors are giving inaccurate timetables for a patient's life expectancy, euthanasia seems even less reliable.
How is it not relevant? It shows that doctors are hesitant to give patient's their best estimate because of the taboo of death.
"physicians would knowingly provide an inaccurate estimate of survival time, usually an overestimate"
"Although nearly everyone agrees that frank, open and honest communication between a patient and his doctor is optimal, on this one absolutely crucial issue it remains very much the exception. As a consequence, two out of three patients may have to make important medical and personal decisions based on missing or unreliable information."
"Recent studies, for example, confirm that many terminally ill cancer patients with unresponsive disease nevertheless receive chemotherapy."
Forcing patients to undergo painful procedures just alienates the terminally ill even more. This deepens their depression in an already depressing situation.
Sure there is.
Can you give an example of alternatives? "Sure there is" means nothing.
I already said that some patients are put into drug-induced comas because the pain is too extreme. Do you have some secret medical technique?
If you boil the problem down to emotion and feelings, it would be highly ineffective.
You are boiling the problem down to emotion and feelings. You make the moral argument that doctors are killing patients.
"This really should not be a reason to kill someone."
I have cited actual studies regarding terminally ill patients and the care they receive. I have even pointed out that it is cheaper for the patient/family and the taxpayers.
No, I'm saying that in both cases it is the job of the Legislature to decide if these policies should be legal.
What is your point here?
We are debating the merits of euthanasia as any legislative body would.
I think it's much different than these things as a life is on the line. But I suppose that's where we disagree.
Lives are on the line for those as well.
Gambling debts can destroy a life. It can ruin the lives of the children as well.
Drinking can also kill: drunk driving, domestic disputes, acute poisoning, long-term effect, and more. Not the mention the social issues regarding alcoholism.
Smoking is similar to drinking.
Unsafe sex definitely kills. In fact, certain STDs are the cause for a great number of terminal patients.
I have pointed out the professional opinion on the matter. I have pointed out a study that shows the taboo of death only prevents the patient from getting the correct information. I have pointed out the fiscal reason for euthanasia.
All you have done is reiterate the the counter: "that reason is not enough to kill someone." That is a completely arbitrary and moral point. You should provide some objective counters.
