I couldn't find this thread anywhere so apologies if it already exists.
What's everyone's thoughts on the practice of euthanasia on a patient who asks for it? What about withholding life support for someone who is clearly not going to wake up?
if the people have not long to live anymore then if they want to do they should be helped to die. if they have unbearable pain and it looks like it wont get better soon. they should be helped to die. if they are heavy handicapped and have because of it a hard life. then if they want to the should be helped to die.
there probably are more reasons when it should be oke. but can't think of them now.
If the person is of sound mind, and if he wants to die, I think that's his choice. Should it be covered by insurance? no. But it's still a person's choice. If a person does ask for assisted suicide, then they should have a full psychological profile written up. Like the brain scans, etc. If a person is severely mentally or physically handicapped, they should have the choice. If they are not able to make the choice, then it should be the choice of the next of kin. Simple as that.
Why would you discriminate against insane people, though? I think a person, regardless of whether he is insane or not, would be in a better position to judge if he wants to live than you.
There are schizophrenics, people with DID (multiple personalities), and stuff like that were it may not necessarily be the actual thoughts of that person. I'm not judging if someone can commence with assisted suicide, I'm talking psychological experts who are able to make those decisions.
There are schizophrenics, people with DID (multiple personalities), and stuff like that were it may not necessarily be the actual thoughts of that person. I'm not judging if someone can commence with assisted suicide, I'm talking psychological experts who are able to make those decisions.
I'm arguing the only person who should make the final decision is the person who wants to end his life, not some expert.
In these cases, which one of them would be able to decide? Would it be put to a vote?
If they are not able to make the choice, then it should be the choice of the next of kin. Simple as that.
Even simpler: Don't take me off life support.
In my opinion though, you should have the right to Euthanasia as you're calling it. Forcing the person to live doesn't solve anything. The state of mind issue, however, I'm not sure. I would rather be not allowed to make that decision if I'm in a psycho, not-really-me mental disease. I'd rather be in full mental health to judge that properly.
It's their life, so why not? Although, I'm sure it is frowned upon in many cultures, if one isn't given the means to do it cleanly, and peacefully, I'm sure they'll eat a bullet instead or do something else that is a bit more depressing if they're that determined.
I wrote a whole speech on this in grade eight, funny.
It depends on the situation... if someone is perfectly healthy, I don't see a reason to assist a suicide. In the cases partydevil mentioned, it should be allowed.
How comes that when a cat or dog is going to die, you put them down, but when it's a human, medicine prescribes to keep them alive at all costs as long as possible, even if it's against their wish? It is imposing a will to live that not necessarily all possess anymore.
If a person's quality of life has stooped so low that life is significantly more painful than death, than they should have the option to end their pain. If people have no choice in the life they live, they should at least be able to die the way they want to die. People in this society take death so seriously, like life is some sacred right that nobody, not even the person, can end. If somebody wishes to die, I say let them. Their death is the end to their suffering, and nobody can choose for them if they should die or not.
As for the "cowards way out" remark, how can you make that decision for somebody? I respect those who wish to die because they have overcome their fear of death, and have accepted it as their final solution. Is it worth it? Most of the time it isn't, but that is not our choice to make for them. Their life, their death. That is how it should be.
I'm arguing the only person who should make the final decision is the person who wants to end his life, not some expert.
what if it's not the actual person in control, but something else, like a disorder, or a split personality, that is making that decision. These types of things do manifest, and it's not always the true person in the driver's seat.
In these cases, which one of them would be able to decide? Would it be put to a vote?
people with DID know who is really them and who is the 'other.' they're not like born with it or anything, it develops after traumatic events.
It's their life, so why not?
No, it really isn't their life. People with severe mental disorders sometimes can't control what they are doing, but with therapy, they can be treated.
what if it's not the actual person in control, but something else, like a disorder, or a split personality, that is making that decision. These types of things do manifest, and it's not always the true person in the driver's seat.
I don't see the problem.
No, it really isn't their life. People with severe mental disorders sometimes can't control what they are doing, but with therapy, they can be treated.
Then the family and friends of this person should help him get therapy.
well, if someone wrote down that he/she wants to die instead of lieing in a coma then they should rest in piece.
That works great for old people, but what if there's a 25 year old who got in an auto wreck?
I don't see the problem.
The problem, to me, is that the actual person, the "sane" mind is not in control, and the "sane" mind probably doesn't want the assisted suicide. I say sane as in the true person that has been there since birth, not "the other" who takes control.
If someone wants to be euthanized because of depression and the like, I say no. They want to die because they think their life is miserable. In truth, no one's life is a gem, so committing suicide due to 'having a bad life' is extremely stupid to me.
Now, if a man or a woman is the equivalent of a plant, and there's hardly any hope for him/her to come out of the vegetative condition, then his or her suffering should just be shortened. If a man or woman is in a mental state which cannot be cured through any means, then I would put him or her out of his/her misery. As far as I can tell, schizophrenia isn't a very relaxing state of mind. If the individual is suffering heavy physical pains, and wants to be put out of his misery, do it.
Now, asking a family member whether they want their close ones to be euthanized is a tricky thing. Naturally, no one wishes for the ones closest to him/her to be gone from their lives, permanently. But, I also find it a selfish thing to do. I've been in the position where I had to determine the life of a friend of mine who was in a coma for about 3 or 4 years. It's a very difficult thing to decide, because by this time, too much has changed, and he would probably never get used to his new life. But, I also couldn't just let him leave, he was my friend ever since I could say the word friend. But, I decided to get him euthanized. It's selfish to keep him alive because he would never be able to adapt to new surroundings, new people, the loss of his mother and sister etc. etc. In these situations, the most humane thing to do is end it for him, before he goes through anything that could make him go insane.
