Euthanasia, Where Do You Stand?

[Boche]

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]

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.

[EQ Fighter]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

[Galloglaich]

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]

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]

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]

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.