|
|
| Dr. Kevorkian |
| Hey his first name is Jack 0.o |
|
50% |
[ 6 ] |
| I can't believe they let him out... |
|
8% |
[ 1 ] |
| Who the *&%$ is that guy? |
|
41% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monkeyinafryingpan Vice Captain
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:16 pm
I know that we have a debate forum, but this is something I want everyone to be able to answer.
Look up the term if you are unfamiliar with it, but it has roots in other issues as well such as the death sentence and abortion.
So what are your thoughts on Euthanasia?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:03 pm
Well. It depends. I.. I can't quite explain my views, but I'll be damn sure to come back and post about it after I've got more than 10 minutes and not super stressed out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shelcombakasfire Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:22 pm
To save everyone some time.
eu·tha·na·sia - [yoo-thuh-ney-zhuh, -zhee-uh, -zee-uh]
–noun
1. Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
2. painless death.
1606, from Gk. euthanasia "an easy or happy death," from eu- "good" + thanatos "death." Sense of "legally sanctioned mercy killing" is first recorded in Eng. 1869.
the act of killing someone painlessly (especially someone suffering from an incurable illness)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:39 pm
I'm not sure where I would stand on it, I'll have to think about it. To say I have mixed feelings would be an understatement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 9:40 pm
I believe that if a person has a terminal illness and has no wish to go through any more pain than is absolutely necessary, and requests euthanasia, let them have it. It's more cruel to force them to go on living than to allow them to die. Alive, they can't do much but ponder their own pain. Dead, those left in life may miss them, but they'll be returned to the earth and their consciousness gone, allowed to dissipate or roam as it will, your choice on that view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:36 am
We did this a few years ago in PSHCE. I would never choose it myself, but it's their choice. I imagine it would really upset the people around you. It would be absolutly awful being a doctor who does that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:08 pm
just let them die a slow painful death... mrgreen jp.
umm it depends on what they did. like if they went to prison and did some psychodic murder thing adn they requested it ...then no. but if they had an illness then i don't see why not. especailly if they are in pain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 3:18 pm
If the person or animal is in pain and it can't be stopped they should have that choice avialable. I'm not so sure about sentencing people to death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 3:20 pm
KoNfUzEd--ZeBrA We did this a few years ago in PSHCE. I would never choose it myself, but it's their choice. I imagine it would really upset the people around you. It would be absolutly awful being a doctor who does that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 3:59 pm
It should be fine, honestly. If it's their choice, you have to respect how they want to live (or, not live in this case) their lives. I can see how it would be hard on the people around them, of course. I mean, it's not suicide if you have a justified cause, and honestly it's another case of the government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.
In the case of it being used as capitol punishment, well that's an entirely different matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shelcombakasfire Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:05 am
Bacillus Anthracis KoNfUzEd--ZeBrA We did this a few years ago in PSHCE. I would never choose it myself, but it's their choice. I imagine it would really upset the people around you. It would be absolutly awful being a doctor who does that. You're right, but I can't think seeing people who want to kill themselves or are in pain everyday can be a very happy job. But if their families want to spend as much time with them as possible, then that might upset them, unless they were in a lot of pain, which would probably distress them even more than suicide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:16 pm
Shelcombakasfire It should be fine, honestly. If it's their choice, you have to respect how they want to live (or, not live in this case) their lives. I can see how it would be hard on the people around them, of course. I mean, it's not suicide if you have a justified cause, and honestly it's another case of the government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. In the case of it being used as capitol punishment, well that's an entirely different matter. I like the debate, this is good. I have to disagree with this one. Although suicide is defined as killing yourself, you are indirectly doing it through Euthanasia, if you request the needle. However it is different if you request to be withdrawn from life support, in which you suffocate/starve to death, but it's faster than a prolonged terminal illness. But if we allow this, which doctors should be able to perform it? At what age may a person get this done? Who is going to define the exact requirements for a disease to be "terminal"? We must not think just of the individual's right, but of the future of our decisions, and what precedents this may set.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monkeyinafryingpan Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shelcombakasfire Vice Captain
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:28 pm
Monkeyinafryingpan Shelcombakasfire It should be fine, honestly. If it's their choice, you have to respect how they want to live (or, not live in this case) their lives. I can see how it would be hard on the people around them, of course. I mean, it's not suicide if you have a justified cause, and honestly it's another case of the government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. In the case of it being used as capitol punishment, well that's an entirely different matter. I like the debate, this is good. I have to disagree with this one. Although suicide is defined as killing yourself, you are indirectly doing it through Euthanasia, if you request the needle. However it is different if you request to be withdrawn from life support, in which you suffocate/starve to death, but it's faster than a prolonged terminal illness. But if we allow this, which doctors should be able to perform it? At what age may a person get this done? Who is going to define the exact requirements for a disease to be "terminal"? We must not think just of the individual's right, but of the future of our decisions, and what precedents this may set. While I can totally see your point, I stick with my statement. Lives shouldn't be ruled by other people, they just shouldn't. There actually are rules as to what is terminal. Many people do commit suicide in light of having a terminal disease, I even know one. When you feel life has degenerated to the point of meaning nothing, it's best to choose the needle where it's the easiest on you. As for doctors to perform it? They could be specially trained, just as they are in other places. Hospitals keep patients until they die, euthanasia just speeds it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:57 pm
In some states in the U.S. Euthanasia of a human being is legal under circumstances were the patient goes through the proper government and legal paper work.
One of these states is Oregon. It is only allowed in cases of a terminal illness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:52 am
I certainly approve of youth in Asia. xp *buh duh pshhhh!*
So long as it's regulated, it shouldn't be a problem. Though I'd have to say that in most cases, it needn't be a mercy killing, as you could just hand someone the dosage and have them do it themselves by injection or other methods. You'd just be providing the tools. If they're unconscious or whatnot, then it'll come down to some controversial bs between those who argue that there's a chance the person might wake up and those who don't think the person would want to live any longer as a veggie. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
