well it depends why you kill somebody. i mean, like in wars. usually theres a pretty good reason for people blowing the crap our of each others countries.
It's always right if they want it. However, people will probably hate you. However again, if you only care for the person's life, it won't matter to what they think about you. That is House's way of life.
Do you mean the more Kevorkian assisted-suicide or just mercy-killing in general? If they consent to it, it shouldn't be a problem, if it is within your power to assist them then you should (either saving their life or easing their passing if they don't want to be killed), in some cases you can use your discretion (for example, you are in a battlefield and you find a person whose missing both legs, one of their arms, and part of their torso after stepping on a claymore, they would be completely unable to respond due to the pain and certain to die shortly; there the choice is yours).
There are two views of this. Morals in a religious manner, and of general morals.
I could specify religions and say Christianity. In the Christian faith, it is wrong to kill. Only God can give life, so only he can take it. So obviously that view would be put first.
In general, if he/she is suffering, then some may think that it is the right thing to do. It is ultimately up to the one suffering. If he/she chooses to pull the plug, then let him/her do it.
You also might want to specify the situation. There are many that may obtain different views.
Doctor assisted suicide in the case of the terminally ill and people in chronic pain that have no relief is right in my opinion. People shouldn't have to suffer *needlessly* because of someone elses moral highhorse.
Yes but anyone could survive and live another life just loosing one limb, maybe two but i'm talk about can't talk, can't walk and on a machine that keeps them alive, and soon to die. That kind of suffering (Yes i know i should of included this in the title, my bad.).
Currently (with the exception of, like, Holland or something) end-of-life decisions with regard to suffering are generally only legally permissable in a passive capacity i.e. you cannot actively suicide. Which is a little silly, in a growing number of people's opinions as the reality facing us is that quality and length of life has improved to the point where end-of-life really has turned into a grey area. "Dying of old age" isn't so much an issue so much as what it is that kills you.
Another area of contention would have been in patients in a vegetative state. In this case, legal requirements are generally "if treatment is futile, the doctors have the final say". We (doctors) are in fact not obliged to continue treatment if it has been demonstrated through evidence that said treatment will not yield a result or any improvement. This is a bit of a sensitive point and ultimately comes down to the fact that basic life-support is very very expensive and possibly worse for the community, both immediate family and overall.
Where we're slowly coming up to is expanding the discussion of vegetative patients to where patients actually have autonomy over their own actions. It's evident that rationally, they are not necessarily worlds apart, so it's only a matter of time before we start to see some major conflicts and changes on this topic.
I guess it depends on the person. If you kill the person just because or another cruel reason, it's wrong. But if the person asked to be killed or is a threat to civilians, etc., then please the person but I suggest don't kill anybody if they ask you that. Hire someone.
I think this is called euthanasia and I think it is alright as long as the person is going to die anyway, and if killing them is the only way to ease the pain (called active euthanasia). I think in most cases, the choice should be entirely down to the patient, however their family and friends may also be greatly hurt by this action and I think that should sometimes be taken into consideration. I also think that the doctor should also have a say in whether or not he thinks it is the right decision but without being bias. I think that the doctor should not allow euthanasia if there is medication that will ease the pain until the time that they actually die from the terminal illness.
I think that if someone has been in a serious accident and the only thing kepping them alive, is a life support machine, then I think that the family and friends of the victim should be allowed to decide whether or not to turn off the machine (this is called passive euthanasia), because it is not really living, if the only thing happening is your heart beating.
Out of the point Esuna. From my view, i agree with some of you guys, there are 2 factors to consider. If they are suffering so badly like they have no legs, 1 eye gone etc etc, then it would be wise to kill them. On the other hand, they still have a reason to live. As long as they believe (which i think they won't), they will live unless some maniac back stabs them. ^_^
I don't think someone should choose to die just because they have no legs or one eye, especially the latter. It may be hard at first, but there are plenty of people in the world who are in wheelchairs and get on with life. And dieing because you have one eye is quite obsurd. I've heard of a pilot who could still fly using one eye.
I believe if you are suffering and cognizant, you should end it yourself. Don't put that suffering on someone else. Most assisted suicides, in my opinion, are bunk. Go drink some antifreeze and call it a day.
If someone is in a vegetative state with no chance of coming out of it, pull the plug. Why waste energy, time, money, on what is essentially a husk of a person. My fiance and I already agreed that if that ever happens to us, we will pull the plug on each other. It sounds harsh, but that's reality.
