Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
With names like Dr. Jack Kevorkian and Terri Schiavo making international headlines during the past few years, the complicated subject of euthanasia remains on everyone's mind. But when considering the plight of the terminally ill and their potential suffering, is "pulling the plug" a matter of dying with dignity or tragically playing God?
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
When Choices Become Obligations
- From ALL
By American Life League - Roman Catholic Pro-Life Organization
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"Moral" or legal obligations
Are we discussing moral or legal obligations here. If the obligation is legal then the Supreme Court would strike down any such law as unconstitutional. Moral obligations are solely the responsibility of the holder of those obligations. Who has the right to tell me that I am wrong to accept that I have lived a full life and wish to not put further constraints upon my family in my decrepit condition. As long as there is no extortion (which is itself illegal) there is no authoritative reason to limit me freedom in such a way.
As a society we need to legislate as if we trust people will act appropriately and not limit freedoms for fear that some people will not.
- polobo
August 22, 2008 4:03PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Confused
The commenter confuses the right to die with an obligation to die. While many cultures have historically have strong opinions as to the fate of their elders, one should not confuse this with the right to die for terminally ill.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 5:38PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
That far, far better thing
One of the problems with even the most well-meaning right to die laws is that some may feel it would be a far, far better thing if they relieved their family or the environment of their continued existence. I would, for instance, be very concerned if people contemplated ending their life because of the cost of further medical treatment or because of their concern that they are a burden to their family.
- Michael Glass
September 22, 2008 8:18AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It is all connotation
The commenter has made the wrong interpretation of the connotation of the ‘right to die’. The phrase ‘right to die’ does not mean it is a person’s duty to die because of old age in order to alleviate those around them, it means that the terminally ill have the right to chose whether to live in excruciating pain, or to end their own life and escape the pain. It is not referring to a person’s duty to their country, but rather to their individual rights.
And as far as individual rights go, people should have the ability to control their own life, and therefore have the ability to choose to end it when they are in extreme pain without the possibilty of relief. Individual rights should be protected, and as long as those are protected, situations like the one mentioned by the commenter will not happen.
- bloggernumber1
February 28, 2009 11:27AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not seeing enough evidence
I do not see enough evidence to support this argument. Clearly Governor Lamm is being very irrartional. Show me someone else who says the same thing. The Terri Schiavo case and the other case presented are harly about an elderly person that we just want to get out of the way. Those are both tragic situations, but they have been going on for years. In the Terri Schiavo article thirteen years had passed! Terri was stilll in the same state. I can understand her parents not wanting to lose her, but was she really the daughter that raised? She is piling up mountains of medical bills that someone in her family is going to have to pay, and she is monopolizing equipment that could be used for someone else. They gave Terri a lot of effort, and they should probably move on. They may even find more peace.
The life or death question has many different aspects. Pulling the plug on someone who is unconscious, and helping a person pass peacefully with a lethal injection need to be differentiated because in the second case, the person is definitely able to make a statement about what they want.
- StriveforYourDreams
March 1, 2009 9:47AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reply to StriveforYourDreams
I agree with the comment made about Governor Lamm's irrationality. There is a world of difference between an elderly person who is content with their life and a terminally ill patient who is leading a life of pain and suffering. The point here is about the CHOICE about the end of one's own life. Of course a person who is facing death and accepts it has a right to live as long as possible, but why allow this person to end their life the way they want to and not allow someone who is suffering to have the same opportunity? An elderly person has no more obligation to die as a terminally ill person has an obligation to remain alive.
- SSNickel
March 1, 2009 5:56PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Erroneous "Bottom Line"
Clearly, the “bottom line” stated in this argument is faulty. Terminally ill patients are, in fact, the only targets of potential legislature. No one is going to allow the elderly to end their lives simply because they don’t want to be a burden. Unless they have a terminal disease that causes them pain or suffering, they will not be granted their request. A University of Michigan study suggests three guidelines for allowing a physician-assisted suicide: 1) the patient must be a mentally competent adult whose death is expected within six months, 2) the patient must request her physician’s assistance to end his/her life on more than one occasion, and 3) a second physician must examine the patient and agree with the diagnosis and outlook.* One would assume that if legislature is to be passed, restrictions similar to these proposed ones would be established, therefore excluding people who are simply elderly from physician-assisted suicide.
Furthermore, where is the evidence that says “right to die” advocates are headed towards more of a “duty to die” outlook? Governor Lamm does not speak for all “right to die” advocates, so the fact that he mentioned the elderly’s duty to die does not prove that the “right to die” advocates are inclined to think that way. If you are going to proclaim that you know precisely where the legislative agenda is headed, you had best be prepared to back it up with more solid evidence than one person making a point.
*J.G. Bachman et. al, "Attitudes of Michigan Physicians and Public towards Legalizing Physician Assisted Suicide." NEJM 1996; 334:303-09.
- Yesterday
March 1, 2009 4:42PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hmmm
This verified expert has perhaps forgotten what this argument is all about. Nowhere in this title is the word duty. The definition of right is defined as an entitlement or freedom, while duty is defined as an obligation or allocated task. Clearly the right to die is far different than the duty to die. The elderly have the duty to die? That is an absolutely ludicrous statement and does nothing to support the argument that the terminally ill have the right to die if they so choose. And then the writer further augments the ridiculous argument with the notion that advocates of the right to die are pushing for some sort of legislation that obligates the elderly to die. Am I missing something? Are all the people commenting on this argument missing something? I don’t think so.
- Big Mac
March 1, 2009 5:06PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
False Use Of The Transitive Property
Just because there are people saying that the terminally ill have a right to die, does not mean that they are insinuating it to be a duty.
Right. Duty.
These words mean two completely different things: choice and obligation. We all have the right to live, so why not the converse... especially when suffering is involved?
- Juno March 1, 2009 5:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.