Should Euthanasia be Legal? If legal, what restrictions should apply if any?
Opponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide contend that doctors have a moral responsibility to keep their patients alive as reflected by the Hippocratic Oath. They argue there may be a "slippery slope" from euthanasia to murder, and that legalizing euthanasia will unfairly target the poor and disabled and create incentives for insurance companies to terminate lives in order to save money. " -ProCon.org
Side Score: 36
Side Score: 4
@Dermot. I largely agree with what you say here. Just to push a bit further, do you believe that "a human should have the right to end his or her life if and when they have a desire to do so..." at any age or should there be some form of age and/or conditional restriction like with Alcohol or driving say (again I live in the US so I'm not sure what your laws are in Ireland)? Also, would you be willing to broaden this to more general cases of euthanasia (to be legal)? If so, do you think their should be an age restriction on such a decision? Take a hypothetical example; If a 25 year old has been tremendously bullied their entire life (say for some deformity or disability that is permanent) to such an extend that they deem life so painful as to not be worth it (and they've tried psychotherapy, anti-depressants, ect. for years to no avail), should it be legal to be able to get "doctor assisted suicide" under these conditions? What if they were 17, 14, 10, ect.? That is, what kind of legal framework would you have around this issue?
Euthanasia is illegal in the Republic of Ireland and is deemed manslaughter or murder depending on the situation; it carries a sentence of life imprionment depending again on circumstances.
For me if a person has passed the age of 25 and is capable of making informed decisions about matters that pertain to his/ her needs , preferences and lifestyle that person should then have a legal and moral right to do as she or he feels fit with the rest of their lives .
To me this means if a person regardless of physical health finds their life so dreadful and miserable why should they not be allowed to end it ?
Society again claims people who kill themselves have " lost their minds " what a ridiculous statement , if a persons life is just never ending misery the most sensible option would be to end it .
I'm glad you asked the question because it's yet another that has people like the hunger question flailing about with the stock answers displayed by herd mentality where all the usual tired statements are thrown about like confetti at a wedding
There seems to be this perverse form of " morality " in action where prolonging suffering of an individual seems to be deemed noble or the moral thing to do , it's not it's interfering with an individual's right to self determination and it seems to me like the abortion question in that society again attempts to tell a woman what she may or may not do with her own body .
Victims of Dementia , Alzheimer's and other horrendous afflictions of a similar nature should be put out of their misery as a duty and necessity of a caring society , their quality of life is zero and the act of prolonging life is normally family members who wish to hold onto the last vestige of human life thus causing more suffering for the unfortunate person who is now a mere shell of their former self .
All hope is gone for these unfortunate people who have not even got dignity in a merciful death ; if it was an animal going through such suffering society would screech and wail at the callousness of people who kept such a beast in a state of abject suffering
My views are not popular but I suggest in years to come will be seen as obvious and perfectly acceptable and reasonable views to hold in a so called just society
This is an issue of basic self determination combined with allowing a legal framework for how to be assisted without the assistant going to jail for doing it.
Criteria such as:
1) The requestor must be a legal adult of sound mind
2) Have severe pain coupled with an illness believed by doctors to be terminal
3) Have already tried medical and therapeutic treatment without relief
4) The means of death must be as quick and painless as possible
There could be a few more but you get the point.
Oregon already has had a process similar to what I describe. All the outlandish gloom and doom the opponents of euthanasia are disproved by the success in Oregon.
I think the legality should depend on the severity of the situation. If a clinically depressed person walks into a hospital and wants to be euthanized, that shouldn't be allowed, since clinical depression can be remedied and dealt with.
However, I have heard of circumstances where one's circumstances of health are so bad, that it's the only option they could think of. For example, if someone steps on a landmine. Quadruple amputee, loss of sight, hearing, smell, taste... Inability to live, essentially... I could see that being a situation in which euthanasia would be acceptable.
@ JaceCarsonne. I think you laid out a respectable position that quite a number of people would be on board with. I would like to push you a bit further on your view that "If a clinically depressed person walks into a hospital and wants to be euthanized, that shouldn't be allowed, since clinical depression can be remedied and dealt with" in order to get your further thoughts on the topic. Firstly, I largely agree with this statement at least for the first time or first few times a person appeals for such a request. Depressed people do not necessarily have their best judgement at the time. I would point out, there are forms of clinical depression that can failed to be remedied and given long term chronic depression such as extreme forms of Persistent Depressive Disorder. Now, I would refer to a former post of mine to illustrate a hypothetical to engage with; consider a person who is now 35 years old and "...has been tremendously bullied..." and socially ostracized "...their entire life (say for some deformity...that is permanent) to such an extend that they deem life so painful..." as to not be perpetually losing struggle that is not worth it. "They've tried psychotherapy, anti-depressants, ect. for years to no avail" and have discussed this and a desire for the pain of life to end with the psychiatrist(s) who has been unable to provide a working solution to the problem for the past 2 decades or so. Should it be legal to be able to get "doctor assisted suicide" under these conditions (after some kind of formal appeal process that has been ongoing for quite a number of years; 10 years say), or rather to hang in there as best as possible?
Fortunately, my state passed the Death with Dignity Act in 2008.
The law allows cogent terminally ill adults, who have less than six month to live, to seek the means to end their life.
So, when the time comes, I'll being going out the way I WANNA go - NOT the way the state tells me I must..
Assuming you mean for humans not animals, I think that if somebody has a terminal condition that is making them feel awful and miserable, they should have a right to end their suffering. Nobody wants the end of their life to be dragged out into a long spell of pain and sadness.
"I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art" Hyppocrates
You should eat the raw meats for your strong vitamins. I eat them for 6 years and I am super good of the brains and muscles and am shitting very smooth. I was a vegan for some years too and it hurts me to think of the pain to this gay. I am hasking you to be like the cro magnons man nd eat some mammaf organs.