Life is a Terminal Disease
The simple answer to the profound question, do the terminally ill have a right to die, is that nobody has a choice in the matter. Anyone who is going to experience life is also going to experience death. And in that life process some of us, sadly, will have excruciating pain associated with one disease or another. But even if we do not have that experience, the fact is we are all terminal. So what is an alleged “right to die?” It is a contrivance of the culture of death which, based on what has just been stated, has no basis in fact.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
If someone is in terrible pain or terminally ill it should be their own opinion whether they should be permitted to die. It's their life.....or lack of it.....that should be their right especially if they have an advanced directive and durablepower of attorney for health care !
The American Life League is right, ultimately - nobody has a choice in the matter of eventually dying. Now back to the topic at hand....
This brief rant contains painfully obvious statements, like that we are all going to die, and then concludes with the idea that no one has the right to die, based on fact. Is the 'right to die' being confused with the surreal 'right to live forever'? Of course everyone has the right to decide whether or not they would like to die prematurely. It is looked down upon, even if severe medical issues are present, but it is never-the-less an attainable option. And that is a fact.
No one likes being told what to do, therefore, no person should be denied the fundamental right to die if they are terminally ill. Walk a mile in someone elses shoes. Would you want to live or die? Do you measure life by the time you spend on earth? Or the quality of a life in general?
Human beings live life because its instinct, what else is there? When life gets to the point at which there is a limited amount of time left and there is no hope, then life, which is already limited, should not have to be prolonged.
This should be limited to people with terminal illnesses, there can be no hope of living past the illness. I do not believe in suicide and there should be a big line drawn if a law were passed to give people this right. Some argue that life is a terminal illness, that we are all constantly getting closer to death. This is just someone wanting to object to death because of their own death complex, it makes no sense. Even if it did make sense, that should give the people that believe it more reason say yes to the right to die. I do not believe in suicide, which is what I consider this to be. So I will live life until God removes my soul from this vessel, however, I do not believe in trying to make this decision for someone else.
Life is a fundamental right, we protect it to the best of our ability. If some person is dying and in enough pain to want to die then they have the fundamental right to.
I'm sorry but you are sadly mistaken. First of all it is none of anyones business but however is making the decision. Secondly saying that life is a terminal disease is the wrong way to look at things and I feel horribly sorry for anyone who feels this way. What would compell anyone to keep someone alive when their death is imminent and the only thing life has in store for them is pain and agony? I would not kill myself personally, but who is to make that decision for someone else? You are wrong.
Someone who is on their deathbed has their life controled. They get hundreds of things that normal people get to choice for themselves taken away. Let them have one thing in their life they are able to control. Let them stop the pain, agony, and misery. Let them decide when the swift hand of death sweeps them off the earth
I find it mind-boggling that in this day and age otherwise intelligent people are using one of the same tactics the Nazis used in their propaganda to facilitate the Holocaust and that is the use of semantics.
The direct killing of patients by doctors is now called "Physician Assisted Dying".
The term "physician assisted" gives it credibility to many people. If a doctor does it, then it must be okay.
The term "dying" is equally benign since we all have to die anyway. Dying is inevitable, right?
So what could possibly be "wrong" with "physician assited dying"? I will tell you what is wrong with it. It is direct killing.
Whenever I hear someone say "physician assisted suicide" is okay, I interpret this to mean "direct killing is sometimes okay" and I simply do not buy that argument. I have been diagnosed with both physical and mental disorders that cause me to have a great deal of both physical and mental suffering. Direct killing is not a solution to suffering. Too often, the so-called "right to die" is, in practice, seen as a "duty to die" by people who truly feel themselves to be a burden to others. When Grandma says she wants to die, we should not respond by saying, "Okay, Grandma, we'll help you die." Instead, we should respond by caring for her and loving her in the best way that we know how.
If YOU don't want to do it DON'T but don't tell others what to do. Love is not the answer for someone in that position who has expressed an Advanced Directive for Healthcare.
Grandma wants to die. Yes, you should respond by "caring for her and lovinging her in the best way that you know," but what about what Grandma wants. This is not 'your' life, it's Grandma's. SHE should be the one entitled to her life. If Grandma is terminally ill and believes it is now her time to go it should not be considered "physician assisted suicide" if she has a request to die.
Furthermore, suicide technically can not be "assisted."
definitions of suicide:
[noun] 1. the intentional taking of one's own life.
2. a person who intentionally takes his or her own life.
(notice the "OWN LIFE" part)
Elderly people often experience depression and feel themselves to be a burden. Often, when this happens, they will say to their loved ones that they feel they are a burden. When they do that, they WANT TO HEAR, "NO, Grandma! You are NOT a burden! We love you and will take care of you!" Love is a powerful thing. The "right to die" movement would have you turn to Grandma and say, "Okay, Grandma. We will help you die."
IT IS ANTI-LOVE.
If dying means going to heaven.....if that's what you believe.....is that so terrible? Suffering is not the answer and besides it's YOUR life,isn't it?
...and your non-existent "God" make decisions for you. I'm sorry you believed in the bogus that is organized religion.
If I want to die I should have the right to terminate my life at any time, for any reason. My life is mine to end how/when I want to. Your bogus religion has no right to tell me that. By the way, if you're going to lobby for anti-euthanasia laws, your religion should be subject to taxation (it's in the IRS tax-exempt code that you cannot lobby if you are religious institution).
I am a Catholic yet I respect the fact that our American system of law is based on the protestant beliefs of the people who wrote our basic law -- the Constitution. Our basic law holds that there are certain "truths" that are "self-evident" and that we have "rights" that are "inalienable". These things all have meaning. Relativism -- the belief that all opinions are equally valid -- can only seek to destroy the Constitution, not uphold it, since relativism is in contradiction to the Constitution. A relativist cannot honor the Constitution because of its claims that some things are true and are "guaranteed". Relativism is the enemy of the Constitution and relativism is the root belief of most of those who support the "right to die" movement. They hold that nothing is sacred and nothing is true. Studies show that the elderly and disabled (I am disabled) struggle with depression frequently. Our understanding of science and culture should lead us to the conclusion that "supporting" a depressed person's wish to die is unConstitutional. We need far more discussion about the "right to die" because of the depth of the issues involved before we go around legalizing it.
The founding fathers of this nation were Deists, NOT Protestants. I am an atheist, proud to be one, because that makes me more intelligent than 90% of the American population. :-)
If I was disabled/depressed, you bet your life I would take my own life. Hey, I'm a gun-owner, so I don't even need a doctor's help to do it. Just a load and a pull of a trigger. Who are you to say someone must live when they don't want to? It's their life to do what they want with, and you have no right telling them they have to live in misery. It's their life, NOT yours.
Oh how religion has poisoned your mind.
Bottom line? I have bipolar disorder. 20% of people with bipolar disorder commit suicide and it is a TRAGEDY. It is a result of an illness NOT A WILLFUL ACT. Many people go for years suffering with bipolar disorder undiagnosed. People with bipolar disorder experience "episodes". Think about that. And this is something that I suffer with. Thank God for giving me people in my life who, when I say I want to die, will encourage me, not "help me die".
I think the problem here is the separation of Church and State. I understand that religion is an important part in the lives of many people, and that to many it is their guiding force. But just because you have a religion, or lack there of, does not mean you can base your opinion solely off of it. This is where the separation of Church and State should come in. This is not an argument about religion, but about individual rights. Every person has their own set of morals, and their own thoughts and beliefs, and therefore one should not impose their religious morals on another. Here, individual rights need to be upheld and not based on religious views because religious views all vary.
Secondly, you keep on referring to bipolar disorder and relating it to a terminal illness. My cousin also suffers from bipolar disorder and I have witnessed it first hand. But bipolar disorder is not a terminal illness. While the illness can generate depression and sometimes suicidal thoughts, the illness itself is not terminal. Because of this, your argument based upon it is invalid. A terminal illness is one that shortens one’s life expectancy, like cancer or Alzheimer’s, and cannot be cured or alleviated by medication or surgery. Bipolar disorder, on the other hand, while it cannot be cured, can be stabilized by medication and support groups. Your grandmother example is also invalid because euthanasia would not be used on an elderly person just because they are old and do not want to live. You need medical reasons for the use of euthanasia, and being elderly is not one of them because it is not a terminal illness. In this case you would have to talk to your grandmother and show them that you do love and care for them, but it really is the only option because here the option of euthanasia is invalid.
(This goes for both you and bagpiper2005) You can keep your religion (or lack thereof) and its values close to you, but because of the separation of church and state, you need other reasons besides religion for your argument against euthanasia. If this argument keeps on coming back to religion, which should already be ruled out because of sep. of Church and State, then it is going to go no where.
I agree with you that while religion can be the driving force of many people, it should not dictate this argument. As you've stated, the "right to die" is an argument based on individual rights, not religion. A person can be highly influenced by their religion to uphold certain views, but those views should not interfere with what others believe; the right to die is an individual choice, no one is being forced to do anything here.
Mental Illness is not real. The FDA just wants people to believe they are real. I'm sorry you can't control your emotions.
Psychiatry: not science, no cures. Just an excuse to push pills. Hey, it makes Big Pharma and the FDA rich!!!
Oh the things you learn reading books by whistleblowers like Kevin Trudeau.
If some people push pills on people who don't really need them, it doesn't mean the condition doesn't exist. It simply means that there is abuse in the system. Mental illness exists objectively speaking although people have lots of different subjective views about it. In my case, I consider it to be a gift because it has allowed me to look at things objectively rather than subjectively.
Psychosis is just one symptom of mental illness and psychosis is where suicidal thoughts come in. When I am experiencing psychosis, it's much much more difficult to see things objectively.
People who experience mental illness for themselves know that people who claim it doesn't exist are just plain ignorant.
Can you PROVE it? Is there any medical test to prove that mental illness exists? The answer is, of course, NO.
Though I will give you credit to having mental illness as you believe in a deity (i.e. something for which there is absolutely no proof of). Religion is a mental illness.
There are medical tests . Levels of hormones and neurotransmitters are either lower or higher.
I find it ridiculous to say that there is no such as mental illness. You mind is a bunch of chemicals that control everything else in your body.
You believe there are diabetics, don't you? I mean, you're not going to say to a diabetic "I'm sorry, but I just don't believe there's anything really wrong with you.", are you?
No.
Why would you then believe that there's no such thing as mental illness? Schizophrenia, Bi-polar, etc.
Leave religion out of it.
I don't have to prove something I myself experience but in the case of bipolar disorder, which I have, I know that when I am experiencing difficulties, blood tests confirm that my lithium levels are off and also MRIs do show differences in the brain activity of people diagnosed with bipolar disorder, so there is plenty of evidence when it comes to bipolar disorder. Nevertheless, I know it exists because I was a very active, contributing member of society, on the board of directors of a statewide educational group, chairman of committees, a volunteer for the church, a journalist for a statewide paper, etc, before it hit me..............and it knocked me down so hard I was in the fetal position all the time. That is a fact.
...that you're letting your religion govern your political stance, therefore it's clouding your judgment. There is separation of church and state for a reason, you can believe in whatever bogus religion you want (they're all equally bogus) but you can't use religion to determine legislation.
This is one of those things that there are no non-religious arguments against and therefore your side of the battle holds no water.
I didn't make a religious argument. My argument was in regard to the depression that terminally ill people sometimes feel. I suggest you go back and read what I said.
If you want to argue, though, that we should NOT be compassionate to people who are in despair simply because compassion is a "religious view" go for it. I don't think you'll convince many people.
You either have a heart or you don't. Which is it?
...and that's why I support euthanasia. Euthanasia puts an end to needless suffering...which is the compassionate thing to do.
After all, we do it to animals, and seeing as how humans are nothing more than highly functioning animals, I don't see what the difference is.
Incidentally, I will be addressing this issue head on in my review of the new documentary The Terri Schiavo Story at my blog. http://tinyurl.com/djnkbc
Terri was a healthy but disabled woman who was ordered starved to death by a judge despite the fact that her family was willing to take her home and care for her. She was murdered by order of the state. There is evidence showing that it is quite possible that it is her husband is the one who caused her injury. The husband had won a huge settlement against her doctors and it was supposed to be used for her rehabilitation. Instead, after he won the money, he started telling this story about how she had said she wanted to die. There was no living will, just the word of a husband who had potentially put her in that condition and had just won millions to go for her rehabilitation. The family didn't want the money. They asked him to please just spare their daughter and let them take her home and care for her, but he fought on. The governor tried to intervene as did the U.S. Senate, but a judge ruled to murder her by starvation.
The Terri Schiavo case shows the lack of will of the American people to protect even healthy people from being starved to death.
This is a human rights issue. Killing people is not compassionate.
Read more at my blog: http://tinyurl.com/djnkbc
...is that a living will is even required in a situation like that. Thankfully, I've had one put in place. I've expressly stated that if anything drastic like that were to happen to me, I refuse any and all life-saving intervention (including, but not limited to, life support, feeding tubes, respirators, heart/lung machines, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, blood transfusion, defibrillation, chemotherapy/radiotherapy, emergency surgery, dialysis. etc.)
I don't want to live life the slightest bit disabled (i.e. I refuse to become a paraplegic, lose a limb, or have any type of handicap due to illness or injury).
Your belief that humans and animals are on an equal plane is a religious belief because neither can your belief be proven by science. You choose to believe that they are on the same plane of worthiness and dignity based on nothing but your own subjective yearnings and no more. It has no basis in anything but your own subjective yearnings. It is purely your choice to believe that as a matter of conscience therefore it, too, is a religious belief.
Human beings DO commonly suffer from depression when they feel unwanted and they DO sometimes ask to be put to death because they do not feel their lives have value to others any longer. The answer to the question, "Will you kill me" is obvious to the truly compassionate person who wants the other to know that he has value. I find it hard to believe that there is no situation in which physical pain can be relieved apart from murdering the person and when the suffering is mental, that is all the more reason to reach out to the person in love and acceptance, not reach out with a tool of death to kill them.
Human taxonomy places us in the kingdom Animalia, therefore we are animals. [
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
That is one criteria of many. No one, no matter how little education he has in science, would ever argue that animals and humans are on the same plane overall. And the matter of dignity itself is one that is rooted in the yearnings of the human heart. Science has nothing to do with the issue of dignity. That comes from the yearnings of the heart. Your heart tells you man has no more dignity than animals. Mine tells me man does have more dignity than animals. Your belief is based on ignoring the many areas where man has proven his superiority. My belief is based on taking all these considerations into account and, therefore, has greater merit than your belief. Not only this, but I have the testimony of the entire tradition of man from time immemorial behind me whereas yours is a new view that rejects the mountain of information proving man's superiority..........a rejection based ONLY on the yearnings of your heart.
I strongly disagree! In the first place, you have not really answered the question which asks about “the right” to die – not are we going to die. Inherent in the meaning of the question is the right to ‘choose the time we wish’ to die. You have used numerous words, but have said absolutely nothing.
Life, like many other things has a beginning, a middle and an end. Because something has an ending, does not make it a disease. I believe life is a joy if it can be lived free from pain and serious illness.
In the second place you casually mention excruciating pain and one disease or another as if they were merely words. Obviously and fortunately for you, you have neither personally experienced nor have seen a loved one languishing in agony with absolutely no hope of recovery. My experience has been different.
You must be very young or have never foundyourself in a stiuation where you are terminally ill or in great pain. How can you say life is always a joy?
I completely concur with your disagreement. It seems as though many are evading or even misunderstanding the topic being discussed.
I agree that choosing to end one's life is acceptable, if they are in such pain. I have had loved ones in this situation previously, so I can relate to the illusion you made toward your experience. It hurts to watch them hurt.