Killing People is Murder
Killing is not appropriate. In fact, the direct killing of an innocent person is never acceptable in a civilized society. Yet this is precisely what right to die advocates want to do under cover of law and with the agreement of the general population. The agenda embraced by advocates of the “right to die” speaks for itself.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
ItÂs arduous to find educated people on this matter, but you sound like you know what youÂre talking about! Thanks Finasteride no prescription 5 m largeness
Thanks so much for this! I have not been this thrilled by a blog post for quite some time! You’ve got it, whatever that means in blogging. Anyway.You’re definitely someone that has something to say that people should hear. Keep up the wonderful job. Keep on inspiring the people! testking 646-364|testking E20-001|testking 642-384|testking JN0-660|testking 70-685|testking 156-215-71|testking 312-50|testking 350-029|testking 640-461|testking 650-195|
It's called a gun or noose. Why not make it neater, legally more stable by allowing people to choose assisted suicide
It may be illegal for a doctor or nurse to actively kill me but if I am dying it seems they should take care of the pain and just let me die in peace.
Oh, please. If suicide is murder , masturbation is rape.
What would assisted suicide be? tee, hee.
In all seriousness it seems like the right to die is a forgone conclusion, but the no-right-to-die position is typcially passive-agressive about telling people what to do. If not for the era of modern liberalism this discussion would be about masturbation with much the same trappings.
This argument is very lacking. Instead of backing its belief in how “the direct killing of an innocent person is never acceptable in a civilized society” with any evidence to prove its conviction, the American Life League focuses on attacking advocates of the right to die. The American Life League’s dependence on ad hominem, an argument that attacks one’s character as opposed to his reasoning, discredits itself and leaves their view rather unconvincing.
Here’s the thing. Put yourself in their shoes. Let’s say YOU just got diagnosed with a rare life threatening disease. YOU have been told YOU have a microscopic chance of surviving through this rare life threatening disease. YOUR body is week. Everything YOU do becomes a strenuous task: talking, eating, walking, breathing, even blinking. YOU suffer through every day, only to hear the decreasing number of days YOU have left to live. Do YOU really want to live YOUR life this way? If given the chance to end it all and spend eternity in a better place with out the pain and suffering, YOU would most likely take it. Who wouldn’t? I believe everybody should be given the option to stop the anguish.
This argument really sounds just like that.. except it's not, because the correct term for this would be "suicide". Terminally ill implies that the individual is going to die.. and painfully at that. Essentially, these people cannot actually live on their own. It would be the same if they decided to walk out of the hospital and die somewhere private. The only difference is that these people want to die in less pain than what the disease they are suffering from has caused them before the moments of death. Everyone has the right to die comfortably if they want to.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder %5B1%5D
Main Entry:
mur·der
1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malice
Main Entry:
mal·ice
1 : desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another
The keyword here is MALICE, which, according to Webster's dictionary, is the intention to cause pain, injury or distress. A physician who assists a consenting, suffering, terminally ill adult in ending their own life is doing just the opposite of this. Rather than imposing pain and distress, the physician is ending the pain and distress that is inevitable with the patient's condition. Everyone should have control over their own life, and if the only thing that person can physically do is lie in bed and suffer, it is more malicious to force them to do this than it is to allow them to peacefully end their life.
The right to die has nothing what so ever to do with murder. It does not necessarily have to have another individual involved at all. It also does not have to involve pain, but the relief of incredible pain that the dying person may already be in. I could be the release of both mental and physical agony.
Your definition is not relevant here.
A civilized society recognizes that murder is wrong, but a civilized society also recognizes that no one should have more power over their own life than the individual themselves, as long as they are not taking away the rights of others.
Arguing that the State should keep people from making a decision well within their rights, while they continue to suffer, is cruelty.
The commenter seems to confuse the concept of "the right to die" with the concept of killing. In fact, he worsens his argument by using such loaded terms as 'innocent' even though the right to die would be extended to people who have made the decision that they would like their life to be ended or have the option of doing so.
There are no compelling reasons why a well informed decision to end one's life when terminally ill should be objected to.
More civilized countries have led the path here such as the netherlands where active euthanasia is not against the law, when certain strict guidelines are followed
The caregiver should
1. be convinced that the request by the patient was voluntary and that its consequences are well understood.
2. be convinced that the patient would suffer and endless and insufferable pain
3. be convinced that the patient has received full disclosure of the situation and its likely progression.
4. have reached an agreement with the patient that no other reasonable solution(s) remain
5. consult at least one other, independent physician, who has met with the patient in person and who has given a written determination that parts 1-4 have been carefully considered.
6. take the ultimate care that the assistance to die has been carefully and in a medically sound manner applied
I apologize for the less than optimal translation.
I understand your concern about people using this as an excuse to murder others but it is not always so. I have personally talked to many people about this subject and the majority has said that they would like to have the right to end their lives if they become a burden to themselves and their loved ones. Example: If a person gets into an accident and becomes paralyzed for life they should have the right to decide what they would do. First: the cost of being hospitalized or taken care of by a nurse is too high for most of the people. Second: their loved ones can not take care of them for long due to the general hassle and because they would not know what to do in case of an emergency. If the person can clearly think about their situation and choose to die then why should we stay in the way? It is their right.
You make it sound as if your opponents are the ones with the radical position, but it is your position that is the radical one. You will not give any movement to your hard-line stance. Under no circumstance will you give an inch here. Even if a person has no chance of living a life that is even close to functional.
Are there any circumstances that you would be willing to move a bit on your position?