PDA

View Full Version : Euthanasia, Where Do You Stand?



Bismark
Monday, March 21st, 2005, 01:37 PM
What is your position on euthanasia? Is it right; is it wrong? Is it only right under certain circumstances; is it only wrong under certain circumstances? Under what circumstances? Who should decide what circumstances necessitate euthanasia?


General Information on Euthanasia

Euthanasia Definitions (http://www.euthanasia.com/definitions.html)
History of Euthanasia (http://www.euthanasia.com/historyeuthanasia.html)
Reasons for Euthanasia (http://www.euthanasia.com/reasonsforeuthanasia.html)
Arguments Against Euthanasia (http://www.euthanasia.com/argumentsagainsteuthanasia.html)
Euthanasia Facts (http://www.nightingalealliance.org/cgi-bin/home.pl?section=3)
Euthanasia FAQ (http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/faq.htm)

US Congress Takes a Stance on Euthanasia (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/21/politics/21cnd-debate.html)


What is your position on euthanasia?

Oskorei
Monday, March 21st, 2005, 04:46 PM
Euthanasia should be an option for those in constant pain, but only after a long process where they are able to discuss it with psychologists and maybe priests. To ensure that it does not become an easy way out, or a spontaneous decision.

I am very uneasy about families deciding about euthanasia, since not all families can be trusted. Some people carry cards that approve of them donating their inner organs after death, and maybe one should think in equal terms about euthanasia?

It would be interesting to hear more religious opinions on the subject.

Bismark
Monday, March 21st, 2005, 08:43 PM
Euthanasia should be an option for those in constant pain, but only after a long process where they are able to discuss it with psychologists and maybe priests. To ensure that it does not become an easy way out, or a spontaneous decision.
I agree with the points Oskorei set forth for Euthanasia to be an option. A patient should have to consult with a psychologist and a priest to gain mental, and spiritual clarity in what he/she is seeking to do.

Torn_Humana
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2005, 10:55 PM
Some people carry cards that approve of them donating their inner organs after death...
These people often receive little if any medical attention, such as the ones who sell their body to science, and the people who have 'Organ Donor' on their drivers licenses.

Euthanasia is fine in my humble opinion, though suffering kind of grows on you.

Jehan
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2005, 11:36 PM
It really depends if God exists or not. If He does, then euthanasia is roughly the same as suicide, meaning you go straight to hell. Life is a gift given by God, it is the proof of his love towards you. Therefore, by rejecting or wasting it in any possible way, you at the same time reject God's love, thus you rejects God himself. You obviously can't go to paradise if you reject God, because paradise IS God, more or less.

At least that's my opinion on the subject.

alphaknave
Thursday, March 24th, 2005, 02:53 AM
Die with honour. Don't die while wining "It hurts!"

Southern Jarl
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 05:36 AM
Die with honour. Don't die while wining "It hurts!"I think some people don't get to choose.

TisaAnne
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 07:19 AM
What is your position on euthanasia? Is it right; is it wrong? Is it only right under certain circumstances; is it only wrong under certain circumstances? Under what circumstances? Who should decide what circumstances necessitate euthanasia?This is always a sticky subject, and one that a lot of people wouldn't even dare to approach, but I feel that human euthanasia in some circumstances is a very practical and viable option that should be considered, and not shunned as being immoral or wrong.

For example, you have an 85 year old person who has lost all psychological capacity, let's say due to advance stage Alzheimer's disease, who is incompetent both physically and mentally, can no longer eat, drink or use a toilet and is basically wasting away in a nursing home bed, completely unaware of his/her own surroundings and exsistence in general. Now, what kind of life is that? Who would want to continue living in that kind of state? I feel that a person in that situation should be euthanised.... What is the point of sustaining something that is basically already dead? Why prolong the inevitable? For the benefit of a person's loved ones? I say, pull the darn plug already!

Euthanasia, in other cases, is acceptable IMO as well. People who are comatose, brain dead, physically and mentally incapacitated, etc. If the person possess no outward signs of life, besides a beating heart and functioning lungs... It's time to put it to an end.

I feel that feeding tubes, breathing tubes, iron lungs, etc., (when used to sustain those who have no hope of recovery), are inhumane and barbaric. People speak of morality and God and right and wrong when it comes to the termination of human life, but I say it is immoral to prolong the existence of something that without a machine and tons of medications would die naturally. In life, one can always expect that death is the end... So in this day and age of knowledge, science and enlightenment, what makes us think that we can 'cure' old age, a terminal illness or failing organs?

Euthanasia, in some cases, is a very humane way to end the un-needed suffering of a human being... Because to live in a state of complete mental/physical degradation is not living at all... It's slow death.


Die with honour. Don't die while wining "It hurts!"Is lying in bed drooling, urinating and defacting on yourself honourable???

Oskorei
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 09:55 AM
Evola deals with the subject of the noble death from a Traditionalist perspective in Ride the Tiger. If there is interest, I can quote the section :)

Siegmund
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 09:58 AM
Evola deals with the subject of the noble death from a Traditionalist perspective in Ride the Tiger. If there is interest, I can quote the section :)
Yes, please do! I'd be very interested.

Zyklop
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 10:15 AM
This whole arguing about the "immorality" of euthanasia only reflects the evasion of anything that makes people aware of their own mortality. No surprise this only happens in extremely hedonistic societies.

Oskorei
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 10:58 AM
Yes, please do! I'd be very interested.

At this point, we shall briefly turn our attention to a particular problem, the right over one's own life, understood as the freedom to accept it or to put an end to it voluntarily.

Suicide, condemned by most moralities with social and religious foundations, has in fact been permitted by two doctrines whose norms of life are not far from those indicated for the differentiated man in the present epoch: Stoicism and Buddhism. One can refer to the ideas of Seneca regarding Stoicism, recalling above all the general background of its vision of life. I have already said that for Seneca the true man would be above the gods themselves, because they, by their very nature, do not know adversity and misfortune, whereas he is exposed to them, but has the power to triumph over them. Moreover, Seneca sees the beings that are most harshly tested as the worthiest, recalling this analogy: in war it is the most capable, sure and qualified persons that leaders entrust with the most exposed positions and the hardest tasks. Usually it is this virile and agonistic conception that applies when suicide is condemned and stigmatized as cowardice and desertion. (There is a saying attributed by Cicero to the Pythagoreans: "To leave the place that one is assigned in life is not permitted without an order from the leader, who is God") Instead Seneca reaches the opposite conclusion, and put the justification of suicide directly into the mouth of the divinity (De Providentia,. 6.7-9). He makes the divinity say that he has given the superior man, the sage, not only a force stronger than any contingency, and something more than being exempt from evils, namely the power to to triumph over them interiorly; but has also ensured that no one can hold him back against his will: the path to "exit" is open to him - patet exitus. "Wherever you do not want to fight, it is always possible to retreat. You have been given nothing easier than death."

Given the presuppostions mentioned earlier with regard to the general vision of life, there is no doubt that Seneca did not intend this decision to refer to cases in which death is sought because a given situation appears unbearable: especially then, one could not permit oneself the act.Here too it is necessary to add what is equally valid for all those who are driven to cut their life short due to emotional and impassioned motives, because this would be equivalent to recognizing one's own passivity and impoitence toward the irrational part of one's soul. The same is even true for cases in which social motives intervene. Both the ideal Stoic type and the differentiated man do not permit those motives to intimately touch them, as their dignity were injured by what binds them to social life. They would never be driven to put an end to their own existence for these motives, which are included by the Stoics in the category of "that which does not depend on me". The only exception we can consider is the case of a disgrace not before others whose judgement and contempt one cannot bear, but before oneself, because of one's own downfall. Considering all this, Senecas maxim can only have the meaning of an enhancement of the inner freedom of a superior being.It is not a matter of retreating because one does not feel strong enough before such ordeals and circumstances; rather, it is a matter of the sovereign right -that one always keeps in reserve - to either accept them or not, and even to draw the line when one no longer sees a meaning in them, and after having sufficiently demonstrated to oneself the capacity to face them.

Siegmund
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 11:06 AM
from Evola: Seneca sees the beings that are most harshly tested as the worthiest, recalling this analogy: in war it is the most capable, sure and qualified persons that leaders entrust with the most exposed positions and the hardest tasks.
Words to ponder today, perhaps, more than ever.

Oskorei
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 11:06 AM
My interpretation would be that Evola is saying that the differentiated man ("the man of Tradition") does not commit suicide because he is in pain, emotionally or physically.

But he may end his life voluntarily, if it is filled with constant pain, and he has proven that he can stand it, but sees no meaning in the whole ordeal anymore.

Of course, differentiated men are in the minority in our age, and I do not know what Evola's words to ordinary men would be.

Rhydderch
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 01:31 PM
I believe euthanasia is suicide/self murder. Now, for those who believe in God, especially a merciful one with whom we can communicate, I think it is illogical for them to say that a suffering individual can be "put down". Because, if God has the power to create heaven and earth, then surely he is not unable to heal that person.

If physically suffering individuals can commit suicide, then by the same logic if anyone is feeling suicidal, then we needn't stop him from killing himself, because stopping him will only prolong his pain and despair.


but I say it is immoral to prolong the existence of something that without a machine and tons of medications would die naturally
I think euthanasia would generally be defined as actually ending the life of someone who would naturally continue to live.

alphaknave
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 03:47 PM
This is always a sticky subject, and one that a lot of people wouldn't even dare to approach, but I feel that human euthanasia in some circumstances is a very practical and viable option that should be considered, and not shunned as being immoral or wrong.

For example, you have an 85 year old person who has lost all psychological capacity, let's say due to advance stage Alzheimer's disease, who is incompetent both physically and mentally, can no longer eat, drink or use a toilet and is basically wasting away in a nursing home bed, completely unaware of his/her own surroundings and exsistence in general. Now, what kind of life is that? Who would want to continue living in that kind of state? I feel that a person in that situation should be euthanised.... What is the point of sustaining something that is basically already dead? Why prolong the inevitable? For the benefit of a person's loved ones? I say, pull the darn plug already!

Euthanasia, in other cases, is acceptable IMO as well. People who are comatose, brain dead, physically and mentally incapacitated, etc. If the person possess no outward signs of life, besides a beating heart and functioning lungs... It's time to put it to an end.

I feel that feeding tubes, breathing tubes, iron lungs, etc., (when used to sustain those who have no hope of recovery), are inhumane and barbaric. People speak of morality and God and right and wrong when it comes to the termination of human life, but I say it is immoral to prolong the existence of something that without a machine and tons of medications would die naturally. In life, one can always expect that death is the end... So in this day and age of knowledge, science and enlightenment, what makes us think that we can 'cure' old age, a terminal illness or failing organs?

Euthanasia, in some cases, is a very humane way to end the un-needed suffering of a human being... Because to live in a state of complete mental/physical degradation is not living at all... It's slow death.

Is lying in bed drooling, urinating and defacting on yourself honourable??? My remark ment if dieing under NATURAL CAUSES. I don't consider anything unnatural that keeps you alive to be right. The woman in the vegetative state should have starved herself to death if she did not have doctors try to "save" her life, which was only prolonging her death. To take a feeding tube out is not Euthanasia, since it was not natural in the first place!

My remark ment someone who was dieing naturally, that they should not receive easing-of-the-pain.

Agrippa
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 03:51 PM
I'm definitely for active Euthanasia, people should have the right to chose in desperate situations.

In cases were the patient isnt able to speak up himself, it depends on the outlook and how probable a better health situation is + what this person said before his/her situation worsened.

Otherwise its a question of the material situation and perspective as well, if f.e. a state has starving children and 90 year old patients without consciousness arent able to live without machines, this is for me a rather a cynical situation.

In cases like those above, it depends totally on the chances for recovery since if those parts of her brain which make her a human being and give her a human personality are dead and the damage is irreparable, she's dead herself no matter if her heart is still beating.

Furthermore if people moan about her starvation, they shouldnt be hypocritical and allow active Euthanasia to give her a fast and human end.

I for myself would definitely not like to vegetate in such a condition and I'm saying that after being in a critical health situation two times of my life.

I dont want to die, I like to live, but not under all circumstances and not for "just living" and for sure not because of any sort of superstition.
If you ever saw such people, practically dead but suffering horrible, without any reason and chance to get up again, which makes absolutely no sense you can't be against Euthanasia in my opinion. If they want to die, they should be able to decide it.

The "funny" thing about this is, that in the US the health care for many people is not the best and many otherwise healthy people dying because of the lack of it.
Now to arse around because if this extreme case is just hypocritical and a clear sign of the state of the "rational mind" of the average American in "Christian" movements.

As I said, if they are sorry for her starving, they should allow active Euthanasia and her husband should do the injection.
If god really doesnt like this, her husband will have to pay for it in his "other life", if not he just helped his wife, himself and finally the whole family which seems to be too much influenced by her ill member which practically died many years ago.

Of course there are single cases of people waking up, but should people kept alive until they are just a living corpse on machines with 80?

That just makes no sense.

Without all the technical stuff she would be dead long ago anyway and she is actually brain dead from what I know.

Patients of coma vigil have usually bad chances to wake up and if, they have most of the time HEAVY harms and will never be the same.

Partly this question is influenced by what you would want for yourself in a similar condition. I said what I want.

As for people who would like to live on in such a situation they should make an insurance and a living will/advance directive or speaking with as much people as possible about her will so that they can testify it later.
If somebody wants to live on in such miserable condition, yes, no problem with that, but not for me and nobody else should be forced to as well.


If its about me I prefer dying fast than living on like this...a living corpse, a vegetative condition, like a helpless plant. Thats no life, thats an insult to life.
I dont even want that my relatives, friends, comrades, partner etc would see me in such a miserable condition.
If it would be for a short time and there is a good chance to recover, really recover, not just seeing some eye movements which means nothing, I would say ok, we must go through, but if the chances are so low, well, we all have to die anyway, I dont want to vegetate like this for nothing. I wouldnt help anybody by doing so except those people which get the money for the supply of my living corpse.
Useless, nothing, no. Me not.
If somebody else wants, he should make his advance directive-living will and having fun being a living machine with all this plugs, artificial openings and lying around like a dead fish, a caricature of the former self.
I dont want that and every honourable person shouldnt want that either. Whats that for a way of living? For a death?

Die fast and if possible on your feet, thats what I want. If suffering continues long enough, most people just lose the rest of their sanity. Thats like constant torture which doesnt stop as long as you are dead and whereas torture sometimes lead to something, in such cases it just leads to something which is inevitable anyway. Thats the problem, death is inevitable anyway, its the time in between which counts and such a time, which is in no way a human life anymore, I can pass that on. Most people which keep their sanity dont want to live on plugged on machines without a chance to get back on their feets too I' say.
Sometimes your instincts are stronger and you get a terrible fear which just gets worse if you have conditions of heavy pains or breathlessness.

Now there might be situations were suffering can help you, your family, your group etc. But thats not the case in our modern hospitals if our life ends and that for sure or your corpse just lying around and huge machines keep the heart pumping, just making illusions for your relatives which should accept you're death.
Because we are our healthy brain, we are our personality. If thats destroyed whats left? Just a shell less human than an ape.

Torn_Humana
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 08:11 PM
I'm definitely for active Euthanasia, people should have the right to chose in desperate situations.

In cases were the patient isnt able to speak up himself, it depends on the outlook and how probable a better health situation is + what this person said before his/her situation worsened.

Otherwise its a question of the material situation and perspective as well, if f.e. a state has starving children and 90 year old patients without consciousness arent able to live without machines, this is for me a rather a cynical situation.

In cases like those above, it depends totally on the chances for recovery since if those parts of her brain which make her a human being and give her a human personality are dead and the damage is irreparable, she's dead herself no matter if her heart is still beating.

Furthermore if people moan about her starvation, they shouldnt be hypocritical and allow active Euthanasia to give her a fast and human end.

I for myself would definitely not like to vegetate in such a condition and I'm saying that after being in a critical health situation two times of my life.

I dont want to die, I like to live, but not under all circumstances and not for "just living" and for sure not because of any sort of superstition.
If you ever saw such people, practically dead but suffering horrible, without any reason and chance to get up again, which makes absolutely no sense you can't be against Euthanasia in my opinion. If they want to die, they should be able to decide it.

The "funny" thing about this is, that in the US the health care for many people is not the best and many otherwise healthy people dying because of the lack of it.
Now to arse around because if this extreme case is just hypocritical and a clear sign of the state of the "rational mind" of the average American in "Christian" movements.

As I said, if they are sorry for her starving, they should allow active Euthanasia and her husband should do the injection.
If god really doesnt like this, her husband will have to pay for it in his "other life", if not he just helped his wife, himself and finally the whole family which seems to be too much influenced by her ill member which practically died many years ago.

Of course there are single cases of people waking up, but should people kept alive until they are just a living corpse on machines with 80?

That just makes no sense.

Without all the technical stuff she would be dead long ago anyway and she is actually brain dead from what I know.

Patients of coma vigil have usually bad chances to wake up and if, they have most of the time HEAVY harms and will never be the same.

Partly this question is influenced by what you would want for yourself in a similar condition. I said what I want.

As for people who would like to live on in such a situation they should make an insurance and a living will/advance directive or speaking with as much people as possible about her will so that they can testify it later.
If somebody wants to live on in such miserable condition, yes, no problem with that, but not for me and nobody else should be forced to as well.


If its about me I prefer dying fast than living on like this...a living corpse, a vegetative condition, like a helpless plant. Thats no life, thats an insult to life.
I dont even want that my relatives, friends, comrades, partner etc would see me in such a miserable condition.
If it would be for a short time and there is a good chance to recover, really recover, not just seeing some eye movements which means nothing, I would say ok, we must go through, but if the chances are so low, well, we all have to die anyway, I dont want to vegetate like this for nothing. I wouldnt help anybody by doing so except those people which get the money for the supply of my living corpse.
Useless, nothing, no. Me not.
If somebody else wants, he should make his advance directive-living will and having fun being a living machine with all this plugs, artificial openings and lying around like a dead fish, a caricature of the former self.
I dont want that and every honourable person shouldnt want that either. Whats that for a way of living? For a death?

Die fast and if possible on your feet, thats what I want. If suffering continues long enough, most people just lose the rest of their sanity. Thats like constant torture which doesnt stop as long as you are dead and whereas torture sometimes lead to something, in such cases it just leads to something which is inevitable anyway. Thats the problem, death is inevitable anyway, its the time in between which counts and such a time, which is in no way a human life anymore, I can pass that on. Most people which keep their sanity dont want to live on plugged on machines without a chance to get back on their feets too I' say.
Sometimes your instincts are stronger and you get a terrible fear which just gets worse if you have conditions of heavy pains or breathlessness.

Now there might be situations were suffering can help you, your family, your group etc. But thats not the case in our modern hospitals if our life ends and that for sure or your corpse just lying around and huge machines keep the heart pumping, just making illusions for your relatives which should accept you're death.
Because we are our healthy brain, we are our personality. If thats destroyed whats left? Just a shell less human than an ape.
I agree with you totally, especially the part about not wanting my family to see me in that condition.

Rhydderch
Saturday, March 26th, 2005, 02:49 AM
Without all the technical stuff she would be dead long ago anyway and she is actually brain dead from what I know.
There are conflicting opinions on that; her father's family say she is aware of her surroundings and has attempted to communicate with them, but her husband has disallowed anything that could further stimulate her senses.
The whole surrounding circumstances are very suspicious, and her friend has claimed that she said things earlier in life which would very much indicate that she wouldn't want to be killed if ever in such a situation.

There is not even any degree of certainty over whether she could recover, there is evidence that she could greatly improve if rehabilitated.

alphaknave
Saturday, March 26th, 2005, 04:55 AM
There are conflicting opinions on that; her father's family say she is aware of her surroundings and has attempted to communicate with them, but her husband has disallowed anything that could further stimulate her senses.
The whole surrounding circumstances are very suspicious, and her friend has claimed that she said things earlier in life which would very much indicate that she wouldn't want to be killed if ever in such a situation.

There is not even any degree of certainty over whether she could recover, there is evidence that she could greatly improve if rehabilitated. Why would someone NOT want to die in a situation like that?

Agrippa
Saturday, March 26th, 2005, 04:54 PM
A fully recovery is highly improbable and any real reaction of HER PERSON, her personality, is highly unlikely as well, in fact almost impossible.

But just assume:

There are conflicting opinions on that; her father's family say she is aware of her surroundings and has attempted to communicate with them, but her husband has disallowed anything that could further stimulate her senses.
Would that be better? That would mean she would have the "locked in syndrome" situation and thats of course one of the worst things which can happen if you are a humn.

If I would be in this situation, I would've wanted to die 15 years ago.
But thats not the case with her, since she's brain dead of course.

Torn_Humana
Saturday, March 26th, 2005, 04:58 PM
There are conflicting opinions on that; her father's family say she is aware of her surroundings and has attempted to communicate with them, but her husband has disallowed anything that could further stimulate her senses.
The whole surrounding circumstances are very suspicious, and her friend has claimed that she said things earlier in life which would very much indicate that she wouldn't want to be killed if ever in such a situation.

There is not even any degree of certainty over whether she could recover, there is evidence that she could greatly improve if rehabilitated.
If you are discussing the Florida case, the cortex of her brain is gone.

Blutwölfin
Monday, February 12th, 2007, 08:21 PM
A terminally-ill woman will today begin a ground-breaking legal bid to force doctors to let her die.

Kelly Taylor, 30, who has been given less than a year to live, will argue that medics are breaching human rights laws by refusing to provide treatment which will lead to her death.

She is attempting to compel doctors to vastly increase her morphine dose to sedate her into a coma-like state. The morphine alone could kill Mrs Taylor, who is frail and endures constant pain.
more (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=36987&in_page_id=34)


What's your opinion on that topic? Should people have the right to decide when and how they will die? Should others -- their families, their doctors, the government -- be able to decide for them? Is euthanasia -- the supposedly merciful killing of the terminally ill -- an act of kindness prompted by a sense of mercy and respect for an individual's wishes? Or is it an act of murder and a violation of the Hippocratic oath? Please take the poll and elaborate on your choice!

Æmeric
Monday, February 12th, 2007, 09:34 PM
Individuals should have the right to refuse medical treatment... even if that decision will lead to death. And I don't see the harm in administering large amounts of painkillers to the terminally ill, for the treatment of pain if they want it and understand the risks, even if it results in death. But I don't think doctors should administer drugs with the intent to kill. At the same time they shouldn't pro-long the lives of the terminally ill, if it only results in pain & hospitalization. One of the problems with the US healthcare system is that we pro-long the lives of the serious ill, without curing them.

The problem with euthanasia is that if it is legalized we run the risk of having doctors or the government deciding when we should die. Many of those espousing euthanasia also approve of abortion-on-demand, embryonic stem cell research, basically the anti-life crowd.

Dutch Dennis
Tuesday, February 13th, 2007, 03:02 AM
I am VERY strongly in favour of legalisation of voluntary, I repeat VOLUNTARY, euthanasia. Early in 2006 I had an uncle become terminally ill with cancer. Early on it seemed that he stood a chance to beat it, and the treatment that he had resulted in him having his stomach removed and taking a chemo. Needless to say, the chemo 'cure' turned out to be worse than the disease.

When the cancer didn't disappear as planned my uncle chose voluntary euthanasia, which is legal here in the Netherlands. It basically involved a doctor using a drug-induced coma to accellerate the metabolism of the body without adding any IV fluids or food. So it results in an accellerated shut down of the body's basic functions, and eventually death.

My uncle had no fear of it, he considered it a welcome release. We, family and friends, had the chance to say our goodbyes whilst he was still comparatively healthy and coherent. Instead of being totally wasted away and on the brink of death as would normally be the case.

Therefore, I am in total and complete support of VOLUNTARY euthanasia for the terminally ill.

VilhelMina
Friday, March 16th, 2007, 02:54 AM
Death is a human right. Our attutude towards it is illogical. At least in that we claim to value life so highly that we will actually force it upon those who do not wish it.

The fundies will fight over assisted suicide. Drooling over the idea that only the terminally ill should have the right to die.

But, any suicide by a healthy human is no biggie.

Go figure.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/62/Suicide_Booth.JPG/200px-Suicide_Booth.JPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Suicide_Booth.JPG) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Suicide_Booth.JPG)

Atlas
Friday, March 16th, 2007, 03:17 AM
In such extreme cases, if the person can't handle his life anymore and actually wish to die rather than live painfully, then yes, I support voluntary euthanasia. There was quite a touching book about a pretty decent looking and smart young french guy who became totally paralized and blind after a car crash... "I ask you the right to die" which he had asked to his mother for years on his hospital bed, before his doctor finally accomplished his last wish. Trial of course but the doctor goes lightly as for I can remember.

Those who oppose this should live that way for a month, and have in mind than it will be their existence for the next 50 years or so. Think about it...

SineNomine
Friday, March 16th, 2007, 04:21 AM
You are the sole owner of your body, so sure, it's yours to do with as you please. Including terminating its existence.

Thusnelda
Friday, March 16th, 2007, 04:36 PM
Yes, in extreme cases like the one above all other decisions would be a kind of crime. :|

Sumosim
Friday, March 16th, 2007, 04:38 PM
If I had a very painful uncurable diesease I would take a cyanide capsule. But I wouldn't know where to get one.

Boche
Friday, March 16th, 2007, 04:43 PM
I want to die with my pain because with the pain you get more back to reality.


But in a situation, for example... let's say i'm stuck between two metal blades and if they get removed, i will die. Then i want them to be removed so i can die. ;)




Gruß,
Boche

Old Fritz
Friday, March 16th, 2007, 09:30 PM
Your life is yours. It should be no one else's decision if you keep it or not.


If I had a very painful uncurable diesease I would take a cyanide capsule. But I wouldn't know where to get one.I feel like taking a cyanide capsule every time I see Richard Simmons on TV. :D

EQ Fighter
Saturday, March 17th, 2007, 04:46 AM
I'm going to say NO, if for no other reason, because everyone else said yes.

As far as the right to, die most everyone already has that, because under most circumstances, you can kill yourself.
Madoc

The problem with euthanasia is that if it is legalized we run the risk of having doctors or the government deciding when we should die. Many of those espousing euthanasia also approve of abortion-on-demand, embryonic stem cell research, basically the anti-life crowd.

You got it.
And how many times has some idiot in the government said “Hi Im form the Government Im here to help you”

As far as Voluntary euthanasia, simply kill yourself, its that simple.

The only one who has the right to die are Commies, and that will be Involuntary.

Leofric
Saturday, March 17th, 2007, 08:03 AM
If there's no right to commit suicide, then there's no right to life.

If you have a right to something, that necessarily implies that you are free to have it. And if you're forced to have, then you're not free to have it.

I don't have the right to pay taxes. I am forced to pay taxes without regard for my will.

I don't have the right to provide my children with an education. I am forced to provide my children with an education without regard for my will.

I don't have the right to wait for 15 days after buying a gun before I can assume possession of it. I am forced to wait 15 days after buying a gun before I can assume possession of it without regard for my will.

If I am forced to stay alive without regard for my will, then I don't have the right to life.

No state can guarantee a person's right to life without ipso facto guaranteeing a person's right to suicide.

Aupmanyav
Saturday, March 17th, 2007, 10:59 AM
I am for euthanesia in case of unbearable pain or vegetable existence. But I would not like this to be made a right. A patient may have wrong conception of his situation. I would involve relatives and a team of doctors to oversee the decision.

Dagna
Monday, October 15th, 2007, 06:41 PM
Are you in favor of euthanasia and what kind?

I am in favor of passive euthanasia: by withholding of common treatments. I am in favor of active euthanasia: by the use of lethal substances. I am in favor of voluntary euthanasia: with the person’s direct consent. There is no need to let a person live like a vegetable or to suffer from a horrible, deadly illness. I am only against euthanasia when the person expresses firmly that he/she is against it. I am in favor of non-voluntary euthanasia: when the person is incapable of making a decision and it is thus left to a proxy, e.g. Terri Schiavo.



Euthanasia (from Ancient Greek: ευθανασία, "good death"[i]) is the practice of ending the life of a human or animal who is incurably ill in a painless or minimally painful way, for the purpose of limiting suffering. Laws around the world vary greatly with regard to euthanasia, and are constantly subject to change as cultural values shift and better palliative care, or treatments become available. It is legal in some nations, while in others it may be criminalized.


Euthanasia by means

Euthanasia may be conducted passively, non-aggressively, and aggressively. Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments (such as antibiotics, drugs, or surgery) or the distribution of a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death (principle of double effect). Passive euthanasia is the most accepted form, and it is a common practice in most hospitals. Non-aggressive euthanasia entails the withdrawing of life support and is more controversial. Aggressive euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or force to kill and is the most controversial means.[1][2]


Euthanasia by consent
Euthanasia may be conducted with or without consent. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted against someone’s will and equates to murder. This practice is almost always considered wrong and is rarely debated.[citation needed] Involuntary euthanasia can be administered when the person is incapable of making a decision and it is thus left to a proxy. One recent example of non-voluntary euthanasia is the Terri Schiavo case. This is highly controversial, especially because multiple proxies may claim the authority to decide for the patient. Voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia with the person’s direct consent, but is still controversial for reasons discussed below.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FEuthanasia)



Euthanasia and the law in Germanic countries:

Australia

Euthanasia was legalized in Australia's Northern Territory, by the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. Soon after, the law was voided by an amendment by the Commonwealth to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978.[1] The powers of the Northern Territory legislature, unlike those of the State legislatures, are not guaranteed by the Australian constitution. However, before the Commonwealth government made this amendment, three people had already practiced legal voluntary euthanasia (PAS), aided by Dr Philip Nitschke. The first person was a taxi driver, Bob Dent, who died on 22 September 1996.

Although it is a crime in most Australian states to assist in euthanasia, prosecutions have been rare. In 2002, relatives and friends who provided moral support to an elderly woman who committed suicide were extensively investigated by police, but no charges were laid. The Commonwealth government subsequently tried to hinder euthanasia with the passage of the Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Materials Offences) Bill of 2004. In Tasmania in 2005 a nurse was convicted of assisting in the death of her elderly mother and father who were both suffering from illnesses. She was sentenced to two and a half years in jail but the judge later suspended the conviction because he believed the community did not want the woman put behind bars. This sparked debate about decriminalizing euthanasia.[citation needed] Decriminalisation of Euthanasia in Australia is supported by the Liberty & Democracy Party as well as the Australian Greens.


Belgium

The Belgian parliament legalized euthanasia in late September 2002. Proponents of euthanasia state that prior to the law, several thousand illegal acts of euthanasia were carried out in Belgium each year. According to proponents, the legislation incorporated a complicated process, which has been criticized as an attempt to establish a "bureaucracy of death".


The Netherlands

In 2002, The Netherlands legalized euthanasia including physician assisted suicide. The law codified a twenty year old convention of not persecuting doctors who have committed euthanasia in very specific cases, under very specific circumstances. The Ministry of Public Health, Wellbeing and Sports claims that this practice "allows a person to end their life in dignity after having received every available type of palliative care."[3]


Switzerland

In Switzerland, deadly drugs may be prescribed to a Swiss person or to a foreigner, where the recipient takes an active role in the drug administration. More generally, article 115 of the Swiss penal code, which came into effect in 1942 (having been written in 1918), considers assisting suicide a crime if and only if the motive is selfish. The code does not give physicians a special status in assisting suicide; however, they are most likely to have access to suitable drugs. Ethical guidelines have cautioned physicians against prescribing deadly drugs. However, they also recognize that in exceptional, and defined, cases physicians may justifiably assist suicide. When an assisted suicide is declared, a police inquiry may be started. Since no crime has been committed in the absence of a selfish motive, these are mostly open and shut cases. Prosecution happens if doubts are raised on the patient's competence to make an autonomous choice. This is rare.

Article 115 was only interpreted as legal permission to set up organizations administering life-ending medicine in the 1980s, 40 years after its introduction.

These organisations have been widely used by foreigners - most notably Germans - as well as the Swiss. Around half of the people helped to die by the organisation Dignitas[4] have been Germans.

Recent debate in Switzerland has focused on assisted suicide rights for the mentally ill. A decision by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court on November 3, 2006, laid out standards under which psychiatric patients might terminate their lives: “It cannot be denied that an incurable, long-lasting, severe mental impairment similar to a somatic one can create a suffering out of which a patient would find his/her life in the long run not worth living anymore. Based on more recent ethical, juridical and medical statements, a possible prescription of Sodium-Pentobarbital is not necessarily contra-indicated and thus no longer generally a violation of medical duty of care. However, utmost restraint needs to be exercised: It has to be distinguished between the wish to die that is expression of a curable psychic distortion and which calls for treatment, and the wish to die that bases on a self-determined, carefully considered and lasting decision of a lucid person ("balance suicide") which possibly needs to be respected. If the wish to die bases on an autonomous, the general situation comprising decision, under certain circumstances even mentally ill may be prescribed Sodium-Pentobarbital and thus be granted help to commit suicide." "Whether the prerequisites for this are given cannot be judged on separated from medical – especially psychiatric – special knowledge and proves to be difficult in practice; therefore, the appropriate assessment requires the presentation of a special in-depth psychiatric opinion." A controversial article in the Hastings Center Report by Brown University Professor Jacob M. Appel advocated adopting similar rules in the United States.[5]

On August 22, 2007, Paul Rubin of the Phoenix-based New Times broke the story of Jana Van Voorhis, a woman with a history of mental illness whose suicide was assisted by the Final Exit Network. The case drew strong criticism from conservative bioethicist Wesley J. Smith in his Second Hand Smoke column.


The United Kingdom

On November 5, 2006, Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists submitted a proposal to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics calling for consideration of permitting the euthanasia of disabled newborns.[6] The report does not address the current illegality of euthanasia in the United Kingdom, but rather calls for reconsideration of its viability as a legitimate medical practice.

In contrast there is increasing evidence that doctors in the UK are hardening their attitude against euthanasia or physician assisted suicide:

UK doctors are particularly cautious about decisions to shorten life.[7]
Compared with countries where euthanasia is illegal (eg. Italy, Sweden, Denmark), UK doctors are more open about discussing end-of-life decisions (ELD) with patients and relatives.[7]
Compared with countries where euthanasia or physician assisted suicide is legal (eg. Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland), UK doctors are the same or more likely to report discussions on ELD with medical and nursing colleagues.[7]
94% of UK specialist doctors in palliative care are against a change in the law.[8]
In 2006 both the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of General Practitioners voted against a change in the law.
Currently in the UK, any person found to be assisting suicide is breaking the law and can be convicted of assisting suicide or attempting to do so (i.e. if a doctor gives a patient in great pain a bottle of morphine to take (to commit suicide) when the pain gets too great). Although two-thirds of Britons think it should be legal, a recent 'Assisted Dying for the Terminally-Ill' Bill was turned down in the lower political chamber, the House of Commons, by a 4-1 margin.


United States

Active euthanasia is illegal in most of the United States. Patients retain the rights to refuse medical treatment and to receive appropriate management of pain at their request (passive euthanasia), even if the patients' choices hasten their deaths. Additionally, futile or disproportionately burdensome treatments, such as life-support machines, may be withdrawn under specified circumstances.

A recent Gallup Poll survey showed that 60% of Americans supported euthanasia.[10] Attempts to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide resulted in ballot initiatives and legislation bills within the United States in the last 20 years. For example, Washington voters saw Ballot Initiative 119 in 1991, California placed Proposition 161 on the ballot in 1992, Michigan included Proposal B in their ballot in 1998, and Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_and_the_Law (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FEuthanasia)

Galloglaich
Monday, October 15th, 2007, 07:26 PM
I voted for voluntary. I would have also voted for the first three if I wasn't stupid and realized that you could vote for more than one option.

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, October 16th, 2007, 12:04 AM
I'm for allowing any form of voluntary euthanasia, as well as allow others to pull the plug on someone who is terminally ill/vegetative and on life support.

Deary
Wednesday, October 17th, 2007, 12:14 AM
I feel strongest on this issue regarding the right to euthanize infants. My dream of parenthood would be destroyed if my child could never have any normal, healthy life. To be forced to live with such a burden would be turmoil, especially if there were chance to have another child free of any severe medical conditions. My capabilities as a mother would be questionable and I do not agree with adoption. I support all forms of euthanasia and believe documentation regarding euthanasia rights per individual should be of more importance today.

SineNomine
Wednesday, October 17th, 2007, 01:33 AM
I'm for allowing any form of voluntary euthanasia, as well as allow others to pull the plug on someone who is terminally ill/vegetative and on life support.
I agree with this. Ultimately, it'd be optimal for individuals to contractually stipulate what is to happen to them should they fall into such a state. In the end a life is one's own, and thus they have ultimate jurisdiction over if it should end.

Dagna
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 11:54 AM
Could the person who voted "I am not in favor of any kind of euthanasia: religious, moral reasons, etcetera" please explain why?

Charles
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 01:43 PM
I voted for 'I am in favor of voluntary euthanasia: with the person’s direct consent'. I am however curious- how would one go about voluntarily Euthanizing oneself (wouldn't that be classified as suicide)? Are doctors present? And wouldn't their presence and participation in the euthanasia violate that oath they take?

Huzar
Wednesday, October 31st, 2007, 03:19 AM
Hey! There's a little thing sometimes people omit when they consider euthanasia. In countries where the public health system is of bad quality and where most White individuals cannot afford decent health coverage, the legalization of euthanasia can have a counter-effect on our people... In this case it may serve government as an excellent excuse not to provide good healthcare and instead replace it with legal, free euthanasia...

BTW, a similar thing also happens with abortion. The following example may be helpful to get the big picture. Claiming that a pregnant woman has a "right to choose over her body" and to decide whether not to rise a White child due to her living in a poor condition (or for more trifling reasons, such as not being able to afford good education for more than one child) is not compatible with an ethnically conscious political agenda............................

So, in a nutshell, when talking about these issues, we must be cautious not to support measures which, under specific circumstances, might be helpful to the left-liberal, anti-White status quo.

Regards,

Templar_Knight

United Faith
Wednesday, October 31st, 2007, 03:45 AM
In an ideal world, passive euthanasia would be my choice but I realise that it is, perhaps, too "harsh" so consent is also fine.

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, October 31st, 2007, 05:25 AM
So, in a nutshell, when talking about these issues, we must be cautious not to support measures which, under specific circumstances, might be helpful to the left-liberal, anti-White status quo.

In that case, we shouldn't have a public health system at all, and leave it in private hands. That would also solve the problem of the potential for the government to push people into euthanasia.

'voluntary euthanasia' is also termed 'assisted suicide', which it outlawed in the US.

Drakkar
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 07:21 PM
Although I personally have trouble applying it unto myself, I think any other person should have the right to do it voluntary if they really wanted to. Anything by other sources (Kavorkian, etc) would be just dodging what the person really wants and I believe they aren't really true to themselves if they prefer it that way. I also think cutting off life support is a different issue, because the person is asking to have it done, so it is voluntary. My family members have chosen voluntary when they wanted to die, so that may be another reason why I believe it is just.

Gefjon
Friday, November 2nd, 2007, 07:42 PM
I voted for 'I am in favor of voluntary euthanasia: with the person’s direct consent'. I am however curious- how would one go about voluntarily Euthanizing oneself (wouldn't that be classified as suicide)? Are doctors present? And wouldn't their presence and participation in the euthanasia violate that oath they take?
Yep, I think it's called assisted suicide. A physician must be there. They give the patient a lethal injection and it's bye bye cruel world.

That's what I found on the Wikipedia link:


In 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003), in the Netherlands, 1626 cases were officially reported of euthanasia in the sense of a physician assisting the death (1.2% of all deaths). Usually the sedative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedative) sodium thiopental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_thiopental) is intravenously (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intravenous) administered to induce a coma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma). Once it is certain that the patient is in a deep coma, typically after some minutes, Pancuronium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancuronium) is administered to stop the breathing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breath) and cause death.
Officially reported were also 148 cases of physician assisted dying (0.14% of all deaths), usually by drinking a strong (10g) barbiturate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbiturate) potion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potion). The doctor is required to be present for two reasons:

to make sure the potion is not taken by a different person, by accident (or, theoretically, for "unauthorized" suicide or perhaps even murder)
to monitor the process and be available to apply the combined procedure mentioned below, if necessaryIn two cases the doctor was reprimanded for not being present while the patient drank the potion. They said they had not realized that this was required.
Forty-one cases were reported to combine the two procedures: usually in these cases the patient drinks the potion, but this does not cause death. After a few hours, or earlier in the case of vomiting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomiting), the muscle relaxant is administered to cause death.
By far, most reported cases concerned cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer) patients. Also, in most cases the procedure was applied at home.
In an earlier 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000) study of 649 patients undergoing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, 14% of patients undergoing euthanasia had complications such as waking from the coma, spasms or vomiting.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands#_note-1) Thirty-two percent of patients undergoing physician-assisted suicide had complications which were troublesome enough in 18% to require their doctors to switch to active euthanasia. In this study physicians were absent in 28% of cases of euthanasia and 48% of cases of physician-assisted suicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands

Yep, well, it can be said it's a violation of the Hippocratic oath but doesn't that oath also say they can't use knives and give abortion remedies to women? Cause they've been violating it already then. I say it's justifiable if they want to stop someone's pain.

Mrs. Lyfing
Thursday, March 13th, 2008, 03:08 PM
Assisted Suicide, also called Voluntary Euthanasia, is currently a contentious issue in many countries. The question in the debate is this: if a terminally ill person decides that they wish to end their life, is it acceptable for others to assist them? This would normally take the form of a doctor administering a lethal injection, which would end their life painlessly.

Every human being has a right to life, perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life.

Whatcha think?

Hanna
Thursday, March 13th, 2008, 03:21 PM
Assisted Suicide, also called Voluntary Euthanasia, is currently a contentious issue in many countries. The question in the debate is this: if a terminally ill person decides that they wish to end their life, is it acceptable for others to assist them? This would normally take the form of a doctor administering a lethal injection, which would end their life painlessly.

Every human being has a right to life, perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life.

Whatcha think?

I think too much '' universal values'' meaning the '' right to life'' one of those craps that Western liberals ramping about.

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, July 21st, 2008, 06:34 PM
I oppose euthanasia. We were given life by God (or another force), not by ourselves. So only He should take it.

Renwein
Monday, July 21st, 2008, 06:48 PM
I voted 'yes' to all forms in the poll.

I oppose euthanasia. We were given life by God (or another force), not by ourselves. So only He should take it.
I disagree about God (unsurprisingly), but in any case, however we got to where we are, we were also given the power to take it away painlessly if need be, and are now also able to string out life far beyond what would 'naturally' occur even 50 years ago, often prolonging suffering in the process, so much for clinging on to life at all costs...

I think the Schiavo (SP?) case is a good one of where euthanasia would have been appropriate, also that 'active' would have been better than 'passive' (the latter usually means starving to death, although I suppose the patient is beyond suffering, but still why do that if you could avoid it?)

here's another current one for anti-euthanasists, (warning - unpleasant to view!) here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05ip4jAA1PQ) ; at first I wondered why they kept him alive, but as far as I understand, his brain stem still works, so his vital functions continue without support (for the time being), but as a person he's all but dead. Is it really the right thing to keep someone 'alive' in that state? I say no... chances are he'll be ravaged by infections and die within a few months/year or two anyway. But if it goes on 30 years, what good could come of that?

mischak
Monday, July 21st, 2008, 06:51 PM
They should euthanize the Hogan family instead, or at least their twit of a son.

Crimson Guard
Monday, July 21st, 2008, 07:00 PM
I voted Euthanasia by consent. That makes the best choice I feel, despite suicide being a sin. But in a mortal medical situation, I feel its the most merciful, then so be it...I think god will forgive you along with family members.

I really cannot trust a large full scale governmental institution and machinery conducting such operations, as most institutions have the nasty habit of becoming corrupt from within. I think thats too much power in their hands, especially for people who beleive in limited government rather than Big Brother.

The only other situation I sympathize with it, is for the infant medically disabled people, again I see it as an act of mercy, but only so long as it has the parents consent as well.

Here's a recent link on this very topic:

One in three medics back mercy killing

http://news.scotsman.com/health/One-in-three-medics-back.4306232.jp

odinsson
Monday, November 3rd, 2008, 05:45 PM
Personally I would want to be euthanized if I was incapable of my current state of being due to some sort of injury sustained in a car crash or other such incident, of course that's just me. Half the times these people that survive these things are only because modern medicine preserved them from death.

Halfr
Tuesday, March 24th, 2009, 07:04 PM
I worked at a home for the elderly demented. And all I can say is: That's no way to live. Half of them are just sitting around, waiting to die. The other half are to demented to understand where they are, and relive the shock and dishonor of being woken up and washed by strangers every day.

Oh... Then there are those who may be cognitively clear, but are without means of communitating. Which is the worst of all.

That's no way to live.

Nachtengel
Sunday, June 14th, 2009, 03:51 PM
I support all forms of euthanasia. Passive, active, voluntary and by proxy. In case someone becomes a vegetable, funding the prolonging of their life via machines should not be supported by the state. Unless the family can afford paying for it, the plug should be pulled. I don't see the sense in wasting resources on a braindead vegetable, unless there is another futurist possibility like cryonics, and in case the person is a valuable one.
I also believe people who are not suffering from a terminal illness should be allowed euthanasia if they request it.

Siebenbürgerin
Sunday, June 14th, 2009, 04:02 PM
Putting a person to death costs money too if they use a cocktail of substances.

Anyway, I've to elaborate on my thoughts. We aren't born because we want to. We've no choice about coming to life. So how could we say we've a right to death? God didn't ask us whether we want to be here. He just put us here. if he didn't want us to live our lives, we wouldn't have been born. So we've to protect what was given to us, until he decides it should be over.

If you're stuck in a bed, yes, it's a difficult life, but there are other peoples who suffer without having to go through that condition. What about the peoples who are stuck living on the street, who are raped, who lose their children or parents? They've to suffer too, and nobody asks them. Should they be allowed euthanasia too? Everyone who suffers?

Nachtengel
Sunday, June 14th, 2009, 04:12 PM
Putting a person to death costs money too if they use a cocktail of substances.
Yes, in that case it does, but it can easily by financed by that person's wage/pension, or by his relatives'.

In the long run, it's much more of an investment than feeding a vegetable for weeks, months or even years.

Hrodnand
Sunday, June 14th, 2009, 04:43 PM
Putting a person to death costs money too if they use a cocktail of substances.

Anyway, I've to elaborate on my thoughts. We aren't born because we want to. We've no choice about coming to life. So how could we say we've a right to death? God didn't ask us whether we want to be here. He just put us here. if he didn't want us to live our lives, we wouldn't have been born. So we've to protect what was given to us, until he decides it should be over.


I think that life is "given" to every human individual and it's everyone's own task or business what he or she should do with it. I personally support and advocate the improvement and progress of life but if someone doesn't see or understand the value of living, let alone has no will to improve then it's better to be dead than having a constantly regressing and degenerate life. Quality is very important.




What about the peoples who are stuck living on the street, who are raped, who lose their children or parents? They've to suffer too, and nobody asks them. Should they be allowed euthanasia too? Everyone who suffers?

I knew people who started on the street and now they have a living. About those being raped I don't understand what you mean. You mean street women being raped? A lot depends on the will to improve, progress and grow. If they don't know what to do with themselves, if they have no will to improve and live a good life then I think they are not doing any good to themselves nor to society. All they do along with their condition is to pull everything back. Most of the beggars or street people have an unhealthy view of life because they see no value in working and improving their own conditions - in the old world people like them were outcast from the community and they died naturally.
It is since christianisation that all the low lifes are being helped and supported without considering their ability or will for a good, improving life so it doesn't really matter in what condition one is they are helped and supported more or less because "everyone has a right for a living" which is a false idea in my opinion.

Siebenbürgerin
Sunday, June 14th, 2009, 05:03 PM
I think that life is "given" to every human individual and it's everyone's own task or business what he or she should do with it. I personally support and advocate the improvement and progress of life but if someone doesn't see or understand the value of living, let alone has no will to improve then it's better to be dead than having a constantly regressing and degenerate life. Quality is very important.
I think it's very dangerous to allow peoples to make everything only their business. Because nothing is only their own business. Because it affects the other peoples around them. if i had created my own life, it would only be my business. But I didn't.


I knew people who started on the street and now they have a living.Yes, exactly. And I've known peoples who woke up from a coma after a matter of years.


About those being raped I don't understand what you mean. You mean street women being raped?I mean being raped in general. Some women don't want living anymore after they experience it. My point is, suffering isn't solely defined as laying in a hospital bed. There are many peoples out there who suffer right this minute. Suffering is part of humanity, and euthanasia can't change that.


A lot depends on the will to improve, progress and grow. If they don't know what to do with themselves, if they have no will to improve and live a good life then I think they are not doing any good to themselves nor to society. All they do along with their condition is to pull everything back. Most of the beggars or street people have an unhealthy view of life because they see no value in working and improving their own conditions - in the old world people like them were outcast from the community and they died naturally.
It is since christianisation that all the low lifes are being helped and supported without considering their ability or will for a good, improving life so it doesn't really matter in what condition one is they are helped and supported more or less because "everyone has a right for a living" which is a false idea in my opinion.Christianity existed since centuries. It's not a question of it. It's a question of social changes and laws. It's not Christianity that forces peoples to be allowed health care, or other free things. Many socialists and communists who propose it are Atheistic actually.

Hrodnand
Sunday, June 14th, 2009, 05:27 PM
I think it's very dangerous to allow peoples to make everything only their business. Because nothing is only their own business. Because it affects the other peoples around them. if i had created my own life, it would only be my business. But I didn't.

No, I said what to do with their own lives depends on them which means that it's up to them to decide whether they live well in progression and improvement or they take the lowline and degeneration.
It depends on the individual - if not then on whom other? :shrug




Yes, exactly. And I've known peoples who woke up from a coma after a matter of years.

Of course but one can't be sustained for years on a machine right? besides who knows if they will ever wake up and even if they do there are high chances of suffering a serious brain damage that can make them mentally and physically retarded for the rest of their lives.
There are natural laws and ways that even modern humans should respect and accept. I'm not saying that medical science is useless and we should throw it, a tool of course as you've said it, but there are limits.



I mean being raped in general. Some women don't want living anymore after they experience it. My point is, suffering isn't solely defined as laying in a hospital bed. There are many peoples out there who suffer right this minute. Suffering is part of humanity, and euthanasia can't change that.

Life is a struggle for survival, there are those who can take it and those who can't. I didn't say that euthanasia is a general solution but it can be for those who are unable to take the struggle. I'm sure you know it yourself that life isn't only about being "alive" biologically.




Christianity existed since centuries. It's not a question of it. It's a question of social changes and laws. It's not Christianity that forces peoples to be allowed health care, or other free things. Many socialists and communists who propose it are Atheistic actually.

Most social aspects and laws have been influenced directly or indirectly by christianity long before modern times and they still are today.

Nachtengel
Sunday, June 14th, 2009, 05:37 PM
There are natural laws and ways that even modern humans should respect and accept. I'm not saying that medical science is useless and we should throw it, a tool of course as you've said it, but there are limits.
Euthanasia isn't natural law either. I don't see why we shouldn't accept science. Keeping someone hooked to a machine isn't undesirable because it's against the natural law, it's undesirable because it's inconvenient for a huge number of reasons. If it were possible to resuscitate that person and make it return to a healthy lifestyle, going against the natural law would be no problem. But it's not, so money is thrown away on sustaining a parasite.


Most social aspects and laws have been influenced directly or indirectly by christianity long before modern times and they still are today.
That's correct. Christianity preaches that life is sacred and we are all equal.

Hrodnand
Sunday, June 14th, 2009, 05:50 PM
Euthanasia isn't natural law either.

It isn't but death for those who are not capable of life is.



I don't see why we shouldn't accept science. Keeping someone hooked to a machine isn't undesirable because it's against the natural law, it's undesirable because it's inconvenient for a huge number of reasons. If it were possible to resuscitate that person and make it return to a healthy lifestyle, going against the natural law would be no problem. But it's not, so money is thrown away on sustaining a parasite.

I didn't say that we shouldn't accept science nor did I wrote only in the context of natural law. Natural law can be a good guide for a good, healthy living. There are cases when we can't "resurrect" someone from it's bad condition not even with the help of science, so I see no reason why to maintain it on machines just to be biologically alive.
Even if is science is a tool, in a case like that it's like using a spoon instead of an oar.

Siebenbürgerin
Sunday, June 14th, 2009, 05:57 PM
No, I said what to do with their own lives depends on them which means that it's up to them to decide whether they live well in progression and improvement or they take the lowline and degeneration.
It depends on the individual - if not then on whom other? :shrug
Ok, I see what you've meant now. But when the person is in a coma, he can't decide for himself. How can it depend on him then? What if the family makes a decision he wouldn't have made?


Of course but one can't be sustained for years on a machine right? besides who knows if they will ever wake up and even if they do there are high chances of suffering a serious brain damage that can make them mentally and physically retarded for the rest of their lives.
There are natural laws and ways that even modern humans should respect and accept. I'm not saying that medical science is useless and we should throw it, a tool of course as you've said it, but there are limits.The limit is killing someone. Euthanasia and abortion. We don't know what the future holds. Medicine has advanced from century to century. Maybe in the future there will be a possibility to cure brain illnesses and make transplants which weren't possible before.


Life is a struggle for survival, there are those who can take it and those who can't. I didn't say that euthanasia is a general solution but it can be for those who are unable to take the struggle. I'm sure you know it yourself that life isn't only about being "alive" biologically.
Most social aspects and laws have been influenced directly or indirectly by christianity long before modern times and they still are today.Christianity doesn't say sustain the troublemakers no matter the cost. It's about showing peoples a path, but if they don't follow it they suffer the consequences. Christians many times lived in poverty, considered it a virtue to be able to struggle through bad conditions. Christians believe in the sacredness of life but that doesn't equal social status or welfare checks for everybody.

Also, for Christians it's important to follow God's word. God said "thou shalt not kill". God gave us some rules to follow in life, the Ten Commandments. Medicine as a tool should be used according to these rules.

I've to say another thing about euthanasia, it's not only against the will of God. It's also against the ethics of medicine. It violates the Hippocratic oath. Because the Hippocratic oath makes a doctor swear these things:


To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them.
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan.
To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority.

velvet
Sunday, June 14th, 2009, 06:08 PM
If you're stuck in a bed, yes, it's a difficult life, but there are other peoples who suffer without having to go through that condition. What about the peoples who are stuck living on the street, who are raped, who lose their children or parents? They've to suffer too, and nobody asks them. Should they be allowed euthanasia too? Everyone who suffers?

The latter are a whole other question, when they cant stand their life they commit suicide anyway. Some jump from a bridge, other start abusing drugs til the 'golden shot'. Could make things easier for them if there would be a place to go and ask for help with their suicide, also prevents the social systems to be forced to pay their health program when they fail.

My grandma died when I was 15, and it was a terrible three week fight. First her abdominal aorta bursts open, the docs fixed it, while in the OP she got two heart attacks and one apoplexy, after the OP she was in coma. The day after the docs said that in her lung was cancer and due to the ventilation machine it all was burst open and starts to befall her whole body. The docs called us in the middle of the night that she had tried to get rid off the tubes, but got reanimated. Next day she got another apoplexy, her skin color meanwhile was a sick green-white and she tried several times again to get rid off the tubes.

The docs kept her alive for another three weeks, although she was dead already. I asked the docs to turn the machines off, because my mother only stood there and cried, but I found the whole thing just cruel and wanted to end her suffering. The docs said they are not allowed to turn off the machines. I asked them if they are allowed to torture someone in this way.

There really was no hope that she would recover, I really cant understand how someone could call that 'life' that must be kept by every price. I really wished my grandma would have died a silent death, but the laws made it to a three week torture :|

Although I prefer euthanasia with the consent of the people, there simply are cases when they are not able anymore to tell their wish, in cases like my grandma with the coma, demented people etc. In this case the relatives should be allowed to decide.



It violates the Hippocratic oath

The Hippocratic Oath is designed after the ten commandments, so it really is no evidence for its trueness nor validates one the other, as they are really the same thing.

When there is no hope that someone recovers, the Hippocratic oath becomes really just a scorn of life.

Hrodnand
Sunday, June 14th, 2009, 06:15 PM
Ok, I see what you've meant now. But when the person is in a coma, he can't decide for himself. How can it depend on him then? What if the family makes a decision he wouldn't have made?

If someone is in such condition like coma and it is highly probable that he/she will never recover or there are few chances to recover at all that means that the person has lost control over its own life, so in a case like that yes, the person(s) closest to him/her should decide.
It's still better to let someone from the family to decide than someone who is a complete stranger or outsider.




We don't know what the future holds. Medicine has advanced from century to century. Maybe in the future there will be a possibility to cure brain illnesses and make transplants which weren't possible before.

That is true, but right now we are not there and there are still plenty of advancements required on the field of science to reach there.





Christianity doesn't say sustain the troublemakers no matter the cost.

It doesn't but it sustains the low lives, degenerate and poor.




It's about showing peoples a path, but if they don't follow it they suffer the consequences. Christians many times lived in poverty, considered it a virtue to be able to struggle through bad conditions. Christians believe in the sacredness of life but that doesn't equal social status or welfare checks for everybody.


I don't want to get too much to the point of arguing about christianity but I believe that deliberately putting yourself in a condition of poverty (like many people did, rejecting material goods for the sake of holiness) is not a virtue but a foolish act.

Thusnelda
Monday, June 15th, 2009, 11:03 PM
I´m in favor of both passive and active euthanasia, but only with the person’s direct consent.

We´re supposed to be the masters over our own single lifes. All the joys and all the problems - all the emotions - we experience in our daily life concern only us alone at the end of the day. I believe in free will and even when "the god" exist...he gave me my free will to take care of myself. In giving me this ability "god" retreated from his responsibility for me. Otherwise "he" wouldn´t give us our own mind and our free will. We must cope with the sorrows or illnesses so we are the ones to decide what happens with our body.

I already took care of a potential problem: I´ve added a card to my purse which says that I don´t want to be connected with life-sustaining machines if I´m braindead or if there´s no hope remaining.

Ossi
Monday, June 15th, 2009, 11:59 PM
Living like a vegetable or trapped in a bed is pathetic. It's selfish and cowardly to either:
- demand someone to pamper you and clean your piss and shit up from your sheets
- demand someone to live like a veggie just so you won't cry or feel guilty you gave your consent to switch the machines off.

If it were me, I'd OUTLAW artificially keeping braindeads and veggies alive.

When you can't walk to the toilet and clean after yourself, it's a sign you and everyone else would be better off if you started singing the harp.

Siebenbürgerin
Thursday, June 25th, 2009, 05:03 PM
The latter are a whole other question, when they cant stand their life they commit suicide anyway. Some jump from a bridge, other start abusing drugs til the 'golden shot'. Could make things easier for them if there would be a place to go and ask for help with their suicide, also prevents the social systems to be forced to pay their health program when they fail.
Suicide is a sin, but if some peoples want to commit it, at least they shouldn't involve a complice, like doctors or relatives that make such a decision. It's a sin to assist someone in the suicide, it's a sin like murdering a person. The law shouldn't obligate a doctor to commit a sin or lose his job.

Many peoples suffer when they get old and ill, but God has his ways and his reasons. We're tempted to think it's unfair, I'm thinking about it too many times and question whether there is a God, but we are human beings, while God is a spiritual being much more complex than our understanding can grasp. Therefore God's word should be trusted, and God's word said the peoples that suffer will find relief in the afterlife, especially the peoples who suffered all their lives. Life isn't an easy ride, for sure.

The control over his life belongs to God. When peoples and governments play God, it's becoming dangerous.

velvet
Thursday, June 25th, 2009, 05:31 PM
Many peoples suffer when they get old and ill, but God has his ways and his reasons. We're tempted to think it's unfair, I'm thinking about it too many times and question whether there is a God, but we are human beings, while God is a spiritual being much more complex than our understanding can grasp. Therefore God's word should be trusted, and God's word said the peoples that suffer will find relief in the afterlife, especially the peoples who suffered all their lives. Life isn't an easy ride, for sure.

The control over his life belongs to God. When peoples and governments play God, it's becoming dangerous.

Why did the docs then kept her, against her own will, against any natural law and against any chance to survive, alive? If men should not touch the will of 'God', then they also shouldnt keep someone alive for WEEKS, who actually is already dead. This suffering certainly was not wanted by 'God', she was dead. But the sick belief that 'men should not touch God's will' has perverted itself with the death-opposing means. To try to keep someone alive against nature is the very same tampering around in God's will like killing someone.
Men do play God, but your belief's double standards allow someone to be tortured over weeks, while labeling suicide, a free will decision, a sin.

If 'God' would value life or care about humans, he would respect their decision and he would respect their death, when their time is over.

And by the way, I'm not bound to your 'god', because I do not believe in him, nor his rules, nor his double standards, lies or any of his words. This god is not my god, he is not entitled to decide over my life nor is he entitled to influence decisions I make over my life.

Bittereinder
Monday, February 22nd, 2010, 08:20 PM
I believe in voluntary and by proxy euthanasia, An individual should be able to make decisions regarding their life or death where medical and social matters like persecution, ridicule and humiliation is considered, an example would be Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun.

However euthanasia by proxy should be a weapon a folk can/should use to improve their own chances of success in a competitive racially realist environment.

"a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia) can be aplied to a folk living with elements that cause suffering to functioning members of society, such as the death penalty.

thoughtcrime
Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010, 06:27 PM
I am in favor of both voluntary euthanasia (which should require a medical opinion of both a physician and a psychologist, as well as a latency of at least 3 months) and semi-voluntary (as they would have no true, rational will) euthanasia on, for example, children with disablements so severe they wouldn't ever be able to live a life in dignity (like having an IQ of under 60). In my opinion, they are simply better off not existing.

Also, old and sick (that is, dying) people should be encouraged by their doctor to think about choosing a dignified death over a feeble existance in misery. No one with a realistic chance of being healed and/or a still working mind should be pressed, save forced, though.

All in all, I feel that euthanasia/suicide should be the last possible choice to end misery, but it should at least be a choice at all.


The control over his life belongs to God. When peoples and governments play God, it's becoming dangerous.

This isn't fact, but your opinion, and I admit it even makes sense from a creationist point of view. At least, if "making sense" and "creationism" is compatible at all, so to speak, but that's another story. I'm sure you understand that to an agnostic, let alone atheist, we don't have to play God, that being because we are God. There is no higher instance than human will I know of, so there should be no limits on what man is allowed to do or not to do. This, of course, includes things like euthanasia, something which was absolutely common and morally accepted in europe in pre-christian times anyway.

Also...


God is a spiritual being much more complex than our understanding can grasp.

...wouldn't it be foolish, even dangerous to obey something we can't ever understand? Maybe "God" is "evil" ?

Horseman
Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010, 06:46 PM
Suicide is a sin, but if some peoples want to commit it, at least they shouldn't involve a complice, like doctors or relatives that make such a decision. It's a sin to assist someone in the suicide, it's a sin like murdering a person. The law shouldn't obligate a doctor to commit a sin or lose his job.

Many peoples suffer when they get old and ill, but God has his ways and his reasons. We're tempted to think it's unfair, I'm thinking about it too many times and question whether there is a God, but we are human beings, while God is a spiritual being much more complex than our understanding can grasp. Therefore God's word should be trusted, and God's word said the peoples that suffer will find relief in the afterlife, especially the peoples who suffered all their lives. Life isn't an easy ride, for sure.

The control over his life belongs to God. When peoples and governments play God, it's becoming dangerous.


While I am not Christian, I agree wholeheartedly with your post. There is an account related by Saxo of a warrior admonished not to despair of his life. The Havamal also admonishes us to accept hardship with cheerfulness and courage. Suicide is a nylthings deed in most cases.

Wyrd
Thursday, September 21st, 2017, 03:23 PM
In favor of active euthanasia for terminally ill patients, passive only in cases where it doesn't involve pain for the patient like dehydration and starvation. If it's a vegetative state, and the person has no consciousness, then it may make sense.

Alice
Wednesday, October 31st, 2018, 07:42 PM
I wouldn't euthanize anyone or assist them in any way, no.

I don't believe that death should be intentionally caused by an action or inaction and I (generally) believe that hydration and nutrition should be provided. However, in certain cases, even medically assisted nutrition and hydration become optional if they cannot prolong life or would cause physical suffering for someone. Making a distinction between ordinary and extraordinary care is important, and declining certain interventions or overzealous treatment isn't euthanasia. Different types of palliative sedation can also be offered when someone is in the final stages of an illness to relieve discomfort.

Gareth Lee Hunter
Wednesday, October 31st, 2018, 07:50 PM
These are my views regarding end-of-life considerations:


Being horribly maimed, losing my eyesight, hands, or ending-up paralyzed due to an accident or stroke. Being able to maintain what I personally consider to be my quality of life is vital to me. This doesn't mean I think other folks who are blind, for example, should not feel the desire to continue living their lives if they so choose.


Also, due to my age, I'm naturally more concerned these days with how I'm going to make my final exit from this twisted world that warehouses the elderly for the sake of economics, and even tries to squeeze as much money as possible from the relatives of those who have passed-away in the form of increasingly exorbitant funeral expenses.


Others might not agree with my views regarding a State-sponsored euthanasia program based solely on individual consent. But when the heartbreaking time arrives when I have to do the right thing by taking one of my furry friends to our veterinarian’s office for the last time, it really makes me wonder why we can't provide this humane service for each other. What is so wrong with helping someone humanely end their misery when they realize their quality of life cannot be recovered due to advanced age, horrible injuries, a terminal illness, or some other ghastly affliction?


Almost from its inception within society, established religion has proven to be a politicized thorn in the side of reason for the express purpose of controlling the masses. Mainstream religion has also degenerated into just another form of lucrative big business. Personally, I really don’t think the Good Lord frowns upon the humanely conducted practice of voluntary euthanasia, since death is as much a part of life as birth. The big difference is that death is inevitable. And we, as compassionate, empathetic, and rational human beings should be able to decide when it’s time to leave this world with dignity, and with the understanding assistance of our kinsmen.


As I’ve stated, these are my personal views on the needlessly controversial matter of voluntary euthanasia, which has nothing to do with some villainous ‘Nazi’ scheme to rid the world of those considered to be inferior.

Finnish Swede
Wednesday, October 31st, 2018, 08:23 PM
But when the heartbreaking time arrives when I have to do the right thing by taking one of my furry friends to our veterinarian’s office for the last time, it really makes me wonder why we can't provide this humane service for each other. What is so wrong with helping someone humanely end their misery when they realize their quality of life cannot be recovered due to advanced age, horrible injuries, a terminal illness, or some other ghastly affliction?

Exactly. Plus I even go as far as saying that those furry friends are privileged against us/humans.

Personally I don't care about other peoples believes (or ideas via their religions) ... but they should keep those just themselves.
What comes to euthanasia ... I don't think those issues at all. For me it would be question of mercy ... just like with those furry friends.

LillyCaterina
Thursday, November 1st, 2018, 01:10 AM
Yes. I believe in voluntary euthanasia that is sanctioned by the state, and conducted with professional dignity.

There is absolutely no legitimate excuse for prolonging the suffering of those who only want to reach that inevitable point in life sooner than the rest of us.

Ravenrune
Thursday, November 1st, 2018, 02:49 PM
113770


I think the 'youth in Asia' should not be flooding into Europe! :-D


Ok ... seriously though, most of us when presented with our dog or cat suffering through some painful and incurable situation will resort to euthanasia so they don't have to live in pain.
I think humans should be able to legally proclaim they want to end their life if the situation is incurable and painful.

Sigrun Kara
Monday, November 5th, 2018, 05:43 PM
I voted for voluntary euthanasia. People should have control over their own time of death. If it's wrong for another person to end someone's life against their will, then it shouldn't be right to make someone live against their will. The use of a doctor can help to make their passing as comfortable as possible. It's a mercy.

SprekenzieEnglish
Saturday, November 10th, 2018, 07:08 AM
I am in support of voluntary euthanasia (direct consent), mainly because of the risk of spouses and relatives abusing the system for inheritances and other material gains. I have had conversations with others who are not in support of any form of euthanasia and their main argument usually centres around religion and not 'ending their life before their time' - while this is a valid point (being religious myself), it is an easy argument to make for the person who is not in severe and chronic pain.

Wuotans Krieger
Tuesday, November 27th, 2018, 11:54 AM
Living like a vegetable or trapped in a bed is pathetic. It's selfish and cowardly to either:
- demand someone to pamper you and clean your piss and shit up from your sheets
- demand someone to live like a veggie just so you won't cry or feel guilty you gave your consent to switch the machines off.

If it were me, I'd OUTLAW artificially keeping braindeads and veggies alive.

When you can't walk to the toilet and clean after yourself, it's a sign you and everyone else would be better off if you started singing the harp.

My sentiments exactly. If one gets to the stage that one requires someone else to wipe one's arse
then it is time to fall on one's sword. In more enlightened times a doctor would make a visit and administer a little something to hasten one on one's way. I am also in favour of the euthanasia of babies with serious defects and abnormalities. One's body is one's body and the decision about when and how to die belongs to the individual. Only the cowardly cling to life at all costs.

Chlodovech
Thursday, November 29th, 2018, 05:08 PM
Because Belgium is a Masonic controlled country, it's always at the forefront of so-called ethical advancements. Belgium was the second country in the world to legalize gay marriage for example (and we had our first gay prime minister, some corrupt Italian socialist, 15 years ago)- and without any difficulty too, there's little in the way of parliamentarian debate and opposition. You rarely hear anything in the Belgian press about cases of euthanasia, even though it happens on a large scale, especially the more incomprehensible, scandalous cases are completely ignored by the media. It's not an issue to them at all. We have to rely on foreign sources here to find out what's going on in this country.


Doctors Euthanize 38 Year-Old Woman Dealing With Depression Instead of Treating Her

In another horrifying example of the consequences of Belgium’s euthanasia laws, three doctors are facing trial accused of certifying a woman as autistic so that she could die by euthanasia.

https://www.lifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/TineNys.jpg

Tine Nys (pictured, center) died by lethal injection in 2010, at the age of 38. She had told two doctors and a psychiatrist that her suffering was ‘unbearable and incurable’ so that she could qualify for euthanasia under Belgian law.

No treatment attempted, just death

However, her family say that her suffering was down to a broken heart after the end of a relationship, not autism. Moreover, they say the law was broken because Ms Nys was never treated for autism and so it had not been established that her suffering was “incurable”. She died only two months after the diagnosis of autism was made, and the last treatment she had received for psychological problems was 15 years prior to her death.

Ms Nys’ sisters Lotte and Sophie have accused the doctors of making a rushed decision without treating her for autism. They are facing trial for failing to comply with euthanasia laws and poisoning, in the first such case since euthanasia was legalised in Belgium in 2002.

No-one is safe

Ghent prosecutors moved just days after a similar case in The Netherlands, another country with notoriously lax euthanasia laws. There, a doctor who secretly drugged a 74 year old dementia patient’s coffee before getting her relatives to hold her down while she administered a lethal injection is finally being prosecuted.

In a warning to the rest of the world, these two countries provide examples of how the most vulnerable groups in society are put at risk when euthanasia is legalised. In Belgium, three children were killed by euthanasia in 2016 and 2017. In Flanders, 10% of cancer patients are euthanised, some without consent. This year, the Netherlands allowed a 29 year old woman with mental illnesses to die by assisted suicide.

Alcoholics, sex-abuse victims, and dementia sufferers also qualify and have died in these countries. When these most vulnerable groups are “helped” to die, it is clear that no one is safe.

LifeNews Note: Courtesy of SPUC. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children is a leading pro-life organization in the United Kingdom.

Source: Lifenews (https://www.lifenews.com/2018/11/27/doctors-euthanize-38-year-old-woman-dealing-with-depression-instead-of-treating-her/?fbclid=IwAR0Zmkxy4Gm4p7AtZ04HWkXc6trOPk BZyn_3dveYJg-GHBwCpmjW7pbDJPE)

Wuotans Krieger
Thursday, November 29th, 2018, 05:25 PM
Because Belgium is a Masonic controlled country, it's always at the forefront of so-called ethical advancements. Belgium was the second country in the world to legalize gay marriage for example (and we had our first gay prime minister, some corrupt Italian socialist, 15 years ago)- and without any difficulty too, there's little in the way of parliamentarian debate and opposition. You rarely hear anything in the Belgian press about cases of euthanasia, even though it happens on a large scale, especially the more incomprehensible, scandalous cases are completely ignored by the media. It's not an issue to them at all. We have to rely on foreign sources here to find out what's going on in this country.



Source: Lifenews (https://www.lifenews.com/2018/11/27/doctors-euthanize-38-year-old-woman-dealing-with-depression-instead-of-treating-her/?fbclid=IwAR0Zmkxy4Gm4p7AtZ04HWkXc6trOPk BZyn_3dveYJg-GHBwCpmjW7pbDJPE)

I see no problem in euthanising a 74 year old. They would have had a 'good innings' anyway. In more enlightened times relatives would either smother an old person that had become senile or the doctor would have given them a 'little something' to 'help them on their way'. This was standard practice in England at least. Why end up a vegetable?
The 38 year old and 29 year old should have been committed to a mental hospital or should simply have committed suicide if they were that way inclined. I am surprised why people pay good money to euthanasia clinics when they can do it for themselves. At the end of the day the body belongs to the individual and the individual should decide when they have had enough.

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, October 14th, 2019, 12:01 AM
Because Belgium is a Masonic controlled country, it's always at the forefront of so-called ethical advancements. Belgium was the second country in the world to legalize gay marriage for example (and we had our first gay prime minister, some corrupt Italian socialist, 15 years ago)- and without any difficulty too, there's little in the way of parliamentarian debate and opposition. You rarely hear anything in the Belgian press about cases of euthanasia, even though it happens on a large scale, especially the more incomprehensible, scandalous cases are completely ignored by the media. It's not an issue to them at all. We have to rely on foreign sources here to find out what's going on in this country.



Source: Lifenews (https://www.lifenews.com/2018/11/27/doctors-euthanize-38-year-old-woman-dealing-with-depression-instead-of-treating-her/?fbclid=IwAR0Zmkxy4Gm4p7AtZ04HWkXc6trOPk BZyn_3dveYJg-GHBwCpmjW7pbDJPE)
I've heard that Belgium is one of the countries where euthanasia is available but a lot of peoples who aren't terminally ill but deal with depression want to make use of it, in some cases peoples who still have more than half of their entire lives in front of them...

Here a recent article about a 23 year old woman from Belgium who wanted to be euthanised:

The clever, attractive and physically healthy woman who is fighting for the right to die at 23 because she is plagued by mental health problems and crippling shyness (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7566413/The-clever-attractive-physically-healthy-woman-fighting-right-die-23.html)


Kelly is 23 years old. She is a bright and thoughtful young woman with an attractive smile that flits across her face occasionally as we spend several hours discussing her background, her family and her short life.

With her long, tousled, chestnut hair and short, checked red dress, she looks like many of the 50,000 cheerful students who throng the bustling Belgian city of Leuven, home to the country's biggest university.

Yet there is a big difference. For this friendly woman sitting on the sofa beside me – someone younger than both of my own children – is telling me an anguished tale of deep personal torment.

'When I look in the mirror, I see a monster,' she says at one point, although dark rings around her eyes are the only outward sign of her struggles. 'I really don't like what I see.'

Such words do not seem to match the person speaking them. But Kelly is plagued by mental health problems that she describes as being like a knife plunged in her chest – and we are meeting to discuss her determination to die.

'It won't hurt so I don't see the problem,' she says.

'It is like going to sleep, and for the first time in my life it will be quick. I won't be lying in bed waiting for it to come.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7566413/The-clever-attractive-physically-healthy-woman-fighting-right-die-23.html

An older article: 17-year-old is first minor to be granted euthanasia in Belgium (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-belgium-euthanasia-minor/17-year-old-is-first-minor-to-be-granted-euthanasia-in-belgium-idUSKCN11N09P)

I've to say I'm a little bit shocked. I've no details about the 17 year old case and if the person was suffering from a terminal, incurable or painful illness, but in my view, it's a sign that it's getting out of hand. :| I know a lot of peoples who dealt with depression and were unhappy, and they thought they'd never change, but then they managed to beat it and adjust their lives at some point. The 23 year old seems to be suffering from some kind of body dysphoria which is nowadays typical for young ages...

Finnish Swede
Monday, October 14th, 2019, 08:02 AM
I've heard that Belgium is one of the countries where euthanasia is available.

Good to know :thumbup. Then I'm old, weak, sick, having pains .... Belgium here I come!

Selene
Tuesday, October 15th, 2019, 04:58 AM
I am not in favour of active euthanasia. I don't believe in forcing people to seek or continue treatment if they don't want to, that's their own choice, on the other hand I also don't believe it should be a doctor's duty to end somebody's life. That's not only a violation of the Hippocratic oath but may also be unethical. If someone really wants to end their life, they can do so themselves. Don't force others to become accomplices and assist you in your suicide.

Finnish Swede
Tuesday, October 15th, 2019, 09:30 AM
I am not in favour of active euthanasia. I don't believe in forcing people to seek or continue treatment if they don't want to, that's their own choice, on the other hand I also don't believe it should be a doctor's duty to end somebody's life. That's not only a violation of the Hippocratic oath but may also be unethical. If someone really wants to end their life, they can do so themselves. Don't force others to become accomplices and assist you in your suicide.

I agree with one part .... nobody should force any doctor to do euthanasia (against his/hers own will ... or believes) ... no matter if euthanasia would become legal one day (among of more countries). But what I have heard via TV-discussions ... there could be enough doctors who would be willing to do that (at least here so ... living in one of the least religious country). And of course in some cases ... person could do it by himself/herself ... for example close the machine, take a pill etc.

Finnish Swede
Tuesday, October 15th, 2019, 09:47 PM
One extra question ... someway linked to topic: Are here some who are strongly against euthanasia but still will/would support death penalty?

Pure morally ... I would find that kind of combination pretty weird/odd.

leRoux
Wednesday, October 16th, 2019, 12:09 AM
I find the idea of euthanasia quite disgusting to be honest. No, I don't like the idea of people living long enough to where their brain has passed before their body. But I rather think the issue is with a civilization that has ended up expanding the quantity of life and not the quality, and that is the problem that requires a solution. Perhaps if such superficial things weren't promoted we wouldn't have ended up in a situation where people can live to be 95 but have been mentally dead since 85. I generally believe that death-affirming policies are moral rot that have dire long-term consequences. Having to artificially end people's lives is a sick band-aid solution.

Sigurdsson
Wednesday, October 16th, 2019, 01:26 AM
I only support it if the person is in extreme pain.

Sjoerd
Wednesday, October 16th, 2019, 03:20 PM
Euthanasia will be used to put down people after they have become too old and work out to continue the cycle of production and consumption and tax paying.

If you think our generation will get to retire, think again. People will just be brainwashed into being put down like dogs when they are deemed useless by society.

Uwe Jens Lornsen
Wednesday, October 16th, 2019, 06:44 PM
I am all for voluntary euthanasia , but the person , wanting to
decease , should know , what s/he is doing .

Euthanasia could be seen as voluntary human sacrifice , just like
there seems to have been human sacrifices before the christian religion
had set foot in central an northern Europe .

Hawx
Thursday, October 17th, 2019, 05:06 AM
For the next generation euthanasia will be applied as a disease or mandatory "suicide gene"!