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
Do the Terminally Ill Have a Right to Die?
Killing One..but Saving Another
What if there was a little boy, 6 years old, he hasn’t even begun to live his life. Since he was two, he has been in and out of children’s hospitals, doctors operating on him, scratching their heads in confusion on what could possibly make this boy so sick. On the boy’s last trip to the hospital, one of his many doctors tells him he has only three days left to live…unless…he gets a heart transplant. With the boy’s rare blood type, it will be one difficult task to find an appropriate donor. Meanwhile, a man, eighty-seven years of age, is in the same hospital as the boy. The man is in a coma and has been for several weeks. His family is too attached to let go of the man and wants to keep him “living” as long as possible. It turns out that the “ill” man and the desperate boy have the exact same rare blood type. This man’s heart could save the boy’s life, and allow the boy to actually live his life. The man has been living a long and happy life until now. The boy is “living” what appears to be a short and miserable life. The man will probably never waken from this coma but the family doesn’t want to give up. The boy will die in less than 72 hours. Wouldn’t you say the boy should have a chance at life? The man’s life was great. I believe the coma is God’s way of saying it’s time for him to go. In other words, by killing this old man who lived his wonderful life, you are saving this young child who hasn’t had a life yet.
- Keri
February 6, 2009 2:12PM
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.
Good point made with a specific scenario
This situation mentioned about a dying 6 year old in need of a heart transplant and an old man who has already lived a full life raises an excellent point, one that I had not previously thought of. People who are opposed to the right of a terminally ill patient to die are likely not realizing that a person's choice to end their life could in fact save another's life, someone who has not yet had a chance to live. In the scenario mentioned by Keri, the old man will inevitably die fairly soon anyway... but is simply being kept alive on life support in order to prolong his time alive. By making him wait to die, essentially, two people's lives are ending very soon. Why not preserve one, and cut the amount of pain and suffering in half for all involved?
- SSNickel
March 1, 2009 6:10PM
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.