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?
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:
If individuals have the right to choose what they do with their own bodies (whatever that means), does this extend to things such as suicide? What relationship does euthanasia and suicide have?
- Benjamin Tuttle July 28, 2008 6:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I honestly don't understand why we lock up suicidal people in mental institutions. It is their body and their life to do what they want with it so long as they aren't hurting anyone else. So yes, the right to die does extend to the right to commit suicide for whatever reason the person deems fit, and I do not believe we have any right to intervene.
- bagpiper2005
September 27, 2008 1:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
What if the suicide is due to a mental imbalance like depression? What if the person has everything to live for but is sad nonetheless?
What does it say about our society if we declare we don't care if people take their own lives?
- Benjamin Tuttle September 27, 2008 9:40AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
What does it say about the mental institutions who are over medicating individuals at an alarming rate? The side effects to some medicines have caused some to actually commit suicide. Individuals that suffer from depression are at a high risk due to the medicines that are difficult to stabilize a patient with. What type of drug, what dose, and how much??? Unfortunately to many commit suicide that were suffering from depression and could have received the proper treatment had they either had the proper doctor or taken the medicine that was prescribed to them, which is common with many.However, someone who is suffering in agony in a hospital bed should have the right to choose rather they wish to end their life. They are usually terminally ill at this point and deserve to die in peace. You did bring up a good question though. I have asked it for years myself.
- kim42 October 2, 2008 3:57AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
We just care about different values. You value living above everything, even above quality of life. Those on the other side of the argument value personal liberties and and quality of life. Surely the answer is somewhere in the middle.
- STexas June 10, 2009 1:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
There is a difference between suicidal people and the terminally ill. Suicidal people often have a chemical imbalance. They aren't of sound mind. The terminally ill are often of sound mind. They know there is no cure to their illness, they'll have to endure pain and a lower quality of life. I think as far as quality of life goes, that can be personal opinion. However, who are we to tell someone of sound mind that they can't make their own choices with their body?
- STexas June 10, 2009 1:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I have seen someone suffer tremendously due to pain that was beyond his human control. He always said he never desired to suffer if he were to end up in a situation where that could potentially happen. We generally never give much thought to it until it happens to someone we love. My family and I wasn't prepared to bury our brother/son. If we're allowed to have access to guns that allow many individuals to take their own lives, we surely could help the ones who are suffering have a more comfortable passing.
- kim42 October 2, 2008 3:40AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The right to life is indeed fundamental. It is the source of all other rights. Without it (and the corollary decision to end one's life), no other rights are possible.
While one may morally object to a particular individual's decision to end his life, it is not the government's proper function to dictate what people can do with their bodies.
- rvb5057 November 5, 2008 11:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Call me biased for my religion, but human life is the most valuable, sacred, and precious thing in existence, and under NO circumstances, should it be ended prematurely. Yes, you are reading the comments of an extremely right-wing conservative, who also thinks abortion is wrong, but I break away from the rest of my kind on the issue of the death penalty, which i think is also wrong because it ends a life prematurely. People should never give up hope, and cling to the last strings of life no matter what. You ALWAYS have the opportunity to make a positive impact on the world around you. ALWAYS.
- Brady November 10, 2008 10:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
wow, you claim in another debate here that no one should have the right to tell you what you can and can't eat then you come over here and want to force your religious views on others via the government. Why do you bemoan others wanting to impose their view on animal rights yet you want to impose your views on suicide?
- reckoner November 12, 2008 11:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
"wow, you claim in another debate here that no one should have the right to tell you what you can and can't eat then you come over here and want to force your religious views on others via the government."
I guess if you feel that's a problem then you probably favor legalizing murder right?
"Why do you bemoan others wanting to impose their view on animal rights yet you want to impose your views on suicide?"
Gee, I think it MIGHT have something to do with viewing people as far more exceptional as animals, but I could be dead wrong on that one.
- F2XL November 28, 2008 10:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Your statement about murder makes no sense.
Regarding exceptionalism, viewing humans as "exceptional" animals does not lead to the conclusion that it's OK to force a particular religious view about suicide on others. Especially in light of the exact opposite stand on a different issue on this site.
- reckoner November 30, 2008 9:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"Your statement about murder makes no sense."
That made no sense.
"Regarding exceptionalism, viewing humans as "exceptional" animals does not lead to the conclusion that it's OK to force a particular religious view about suicide on others."
What does religion have to do with my views? straw man
"Especially in light of the exact opposite stand on a different issue on this site."
Which is?
- F2XL December 2, 2008 7:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
So, you obviously believe in "God." And that means you obviously think that you will never die.
Sounds weird, doesn't it? But yet that's your belief - that you will have everlasting life. That this is just an earthly shell and your real life is waiting for you. With "God."
Well, then... if you think that life is so precious why are trying to keep people from going to where there is no longer any earthly suffering?
Why would claim that people should never give up hope? If you believe, THAT is your hope. Why would tell people they should "cling to the last strings of life no matter what"? Obviously, your life doesn't truly begin until you die.
That's the whole point about you religious types. Which is also why I don't understand why you people get so upset when someone you love dies. That should be a cause for celebration to your kind of people. Halleh frikken lujia and praise the LAWD! I'm not making fun of you or anyone likethat... it seriously makes no sense. If you really had that joy joy joy down in your heart, you would honestly believe that you Will Not Die... and this is just an earthly shell.
So. If you say people don't have a right to end their earthly suffering, you're saying they don't have a right to choose to go to their true place - home. And isn't that defeating the point?
- SocialistBetty January 3, 2009 2:49AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Ask yourself, what is it about each life individually that makes it "valuable, sacred and precious"? When you bring up the topic of "value", you must answer the questions - Of value to whom? Of value for what purpose? Why? What is your argument that the value you place on another life supersedes the value that life places on itself? Is your argument factually correct and logically consistent? If you truly believe "life is the most valuable, sacred, and precious thing in existence" then, to be consistent, you must also believe that a life belongs to itself without question. If a life isn't at liberty to develop, grow and express itself without requiring permissions from others, then the value of that life both to itself and possibly to others is greatly diminished. Do you fully understand what happens to a life when you convince that life it is subordinate to the wishes of others? Is not our fullest health determined by the amount of liberty we enjoy to find our own path? Considering the wealth of experience and personal abilities, talents, skills, understanding, etc. of the typical individual, no other individual could possibly understand all that comes together to make that individual happy. You can claim you know what constitutes the best "happiness" for another but, I can assure, you do not and cannot. You claim to be able to do an impossible thing. You may certainly be similar to another life, however, you can never be identical to another life and without precise similarity, you cannot possibly know how another defines happiness. The fact that every single one of us redefines "happiness" for ourselves from moment to moment, i.e., our definition of "happiness" is contextual and context is forever changing, the probability you will understand fully what is "best" for another individual in any one moment, let alone at all times diminishes to zero.
Although I agree that "life" and possibility" go hand in hand, i.e., in death there is no possibility for choice, there are no options, I disagree with the viewpoint that a life should cling to the last strings of life "no matter what". That is a savagely broad statement consider the many horrors that would be included in the "no matter what". In your estimation, would it be wrong of a human being to wish for death while they are being roasted alive? How much suffering do you insist others endure before you give them permission to abandon their lives? On what basis do you insist on that level of suffering? If you find yourself in the very same predicament, will you gladly accept the insistence of others that you suffer until they decide you've had enough, or do you believe you ought to have the liberty to decide that limit for yourself? If you personally are willing to grant others that authority over your life, on what basis do you insist others must grant the same?
- Naumadd January 8, 2009 2:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
It makes perfect sense to give the terminally ill the right to die, im not sure how i feel about suicide, but i dont think its wrong at all to let someone who is in pain and bedridden to end their life sooner than later.
- zachgrgry January 25, 2009 9:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I do not believe that anyone can tell another person what to do with their body. Only the person suffering through the illness knows what kind of pain they are in. Who would I be to say that their pain is not significant enough for them to wish to die? That is not my judgement to make. While I am a Christian and I do personally believe that God gives life and has the authority to take it away, I also do not believe that it is MY right to tell someone else that they can not die. If the patient has religious convictions that causes him or her to feel that they should NOT just give up and allow themselves to die then that should be for the individual to decide as well.
As far as the issue of euthanasia is concerned, I do not condone a doctor helping a patient die. I have a hard time getting my mind around the idea of "assisted suicide," because to me it looks a lot like murder. I can not see why a moral person would try to help someone else die. However, if a patient wants to refuse treatment and be sent home to die a natural death, then I believe that is acceptable.
In forming my opinion on this issue I tried to put myself in the place of a terminally ill patient. If I was lying in a hospital waiting to die, running up medical bills for my loved ones to have to struggle to pay after my death, then I would more than likely make the decision to halt treatment and go home to spend the remainder of my time with my family and friends. If being in the hospital was only prolonging the inevitable, what quality of life would that be? To me, it would only make sense to use what life I had left to MAKE the rest of my time "quality" time.
- jitiac February 5, 2009 9:02AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
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. 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.
- zachgrgry February 5, 2009 10:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Picture this: You are sitting in a hospital bed with a splitting headache that has been pounding nonstop for a week. The doctor comes in with a grave look on his face. He glances at his charts, looks up and tells you that you have stage four brain cancer and that you have just a few months, at most, to live. He explains your options- chemo, which has no guarantees and is painful, or just enjoying the life you have left. You choose to enjoy your time. Fast forward one month. The headaches are getting worse and more frequent, and recently you have experienced blackouts and fainting spells. A week later you are in the hospital, brain dead, hooked up to a heart and lung machine which is pumping ‘life’ into your body because the tumor in your brain has gotten so large that it cut off your fundamental functions. Is this how you would want your last days on earth to be? Hooked up to a machine that is keeping you alive?
As said in this article, “Life isn’t just about breathing, it’s about living.” The person hooked up to machines in the hospital is not living, at least not in the sense of expressing emotions and experiencing life. In fact, if it wasn’t for the machines they wouldn’t be alive at all. Just because we have the ability to keep people alive doesn’t mean that we should.
People seem to face a wall when they come to this issue, believing that by taking patients or loved ones off the machines that they are in fact committing murder. However, this is not the case. It is a greater crime to keep these people alive with artificial and low quality of life than to take them off and let them die a natural death. I understand that it is hard to see a loved one die, but isn’t it better to see them pass peacefully than to see them hooked up to humming machines? Allowing someone the right to die is not murder. It is their life and if they wish to end it over being kept alive on machines their decision should be honored. If they are unable to make this decision because they are brain dead and do not have a written will, quality of life should be chosen over quantity of life.
- bloggernumber1 February 8, 2009 12:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Once again, I have to say that I tend to ride the fence on this issue somewhat. I stated before that I do realize only the person going through the terminal illness understands the kind of pain they are in. But this is THEIR decision to make, and I understand what you said about taking someone off of life support being a better alternative to keeping them alive and suffering. I still believe that the decision depends solely on the patient and that the doctors and family should be a source of encouragement for the patient and try to create the best quality of life that they can for the person while they are still here.
Those who are brain dead is a different ballpark in my opinion. If the person is, in fact, brain dead that means that they in essence are no longer here. They cannot communicate, they do not know where they are at and they do not know who is in the room with them. In this case, when a person is that far gone, I don't see a problem with taking a loved one off of life support. It is prolonging the inevitable...and reality will do nothing but prolong agony and heartache for the loved ones left behind. But if the person is still sound in mind then I think doctors should do everything in their power to alleviate pain so that the patient CAN spend time with their families during their last few weeks of life. If this is not possible....the patient should be the only one with power over the decision.
- jitiac February 11, 2009 9:26AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I also believe, as you have said, that people who are still showing brain function and therefore life, should be kept alive. I didn’t mean to sound like I believed that everyone that is on a machine should be taken off. There are people who need machines to do certain functions for them, yet they are otherwise functioning on their own. In these cases, as you have also said, it is the doctor’s job to keep them alive and as free of pain as possible, while it is the family’s job to spend time with their family member and care for them like only a family can.
I do not believe that we should go around taking everyone off machines because they are bound to die eventually, because in fact, everyone is bound to die. We need to enjoy the time we have. I just feel that if one has no mental function that their life has already dimmed, and machines are only keeping the body alive, not the person. And in this case it is cruel to keep them alive this way. But the choice to keep them alive really comes down to their will, and if they do not have one, to their family. And I know that it is a hard decision, I would not want to make it, but it is one that people are faced with everyday, and one that faces great opposition.
Actually, in some cases, there is a written will where a patient has stated that they do not want to be kept alive by a machine, yet their family will fight it, trying to keep them alive. While this is all done because they love their family member and cannot bear to let them go, the ultimate choice should be left up to the patient, it is their life after all, and their decision should be honored.
- bloggernumber1 February 16, 2009 8:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
We are supposed to have control of our bodies, and that should mean the right to decide when it is our time. It is inhumane to make someone who is suffering, and can not be helped lie in a hospital bed in agony until their time comes. We euthanize animals, and even though we tend to put ourselves above other animals, we are in the same kingdom.
As another poster stated. If I am in a vegetative state, the likelyhood of waking up and "living life" is not likely at all. Someone could better use my organs than me. Someone that actually has the chance. The costs of keeping someone in the hospital on lifesupport, who has practically no chance is not worth it.
It is hard to watch someone who wants to go, but can't. Personally, it would be tough to live without a loved one, but I would rather them go in peace. If it was me, I would rather my family not watch me suffer, and I would rather have the chance of giving life to someone else.
- StriveforYourDreams February 8, 2009 7:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I agree with some of the other comments in that if a person is terminally sick and know they are not going to live long. They should have the right to choose how they die. Especially if a person is in a lot of pain. Here is a thing with life. We all do not want any animal to suffer--so in essence we put them out of their misery. Is this not true with humans as well?? We are indeed animals to some percent. So why should we suffer? I think we should legalize asisted suicide in the worst cases of health. I think it is easer on the people that care for a person that is dieing and knows they are suffering--for it all to end. Lets face it people--when a person is terminally ill they feed them with enough morphine so they do not know anything. So the person as you know them no longer exists.
- flying eagle February 12, 2009 9:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Technology has created an artificial life that surpasses our natural life. These technologies are helpful but to what point does it make living about the quantity of life instead of the quality. At that point, a terminally ill person should have a right to be taken away from the technology in a humane and moral way to be able to die, if they so choose so. Living shouldn’t be about the quantity of life, meaning how long you live, but about the quality of life. I agree that this person should be or was in the right state of mind to be able to make such a choice, but by forcing a person to live in a state where life is only about living one more minute in suffering instead of living to enjoy life is not right or fair to the person.
- big red February 16, 2009 9:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
In my opinion I believe the terminally ill may have the right to end their lives, but only if they are in a tremendous amount of pain or if the have to keep on living with the assistance of a machine. I do not believe that by “pulling the plug” you are playing the role of God. If a human being is living life by being hooked to a machine and each day comes with an artificial breath, that isn’t really living, that is just us using technology to prolong life. For those of you who believe that by “pulling the plug” we are assuming the position of God, well I do not believe God would want us to cling to life especially when one is in the state of a vegetable. For those of you who do not care about the religious aspect of it and just view “pulling the plug” as morally wrong…well let me just say that life is not measured by number of breath you take but the savoring you part take in life. If the person does not wish to live there life on tubes or hooked up to machines, I fully understand. It is possible that the person does not want to be a financial burden by living an artificial life and that he/she does not want to be remembered with all the tubes and machines around them. Now euthanasia is a little bit different, it is ending the life of an individual who suffers from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, by a lethal injection. Euthanasia, if the patient is an immense pain but not living with the assistance of technology I don’t believe we should be screwing with their lives, if anything we should try and make them feel as comfortable as we can. Give them a doobie if it makes them feel a little more at ease.
- Michelle M February 17, 2009 9:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I agree that the decision to end one's own life (especially a terminally ill patient who is literally spending their life waiting to die) is a fundamental human right. This article makes an excellent point about why these people are still alive in the first place. They are not alive in hospitals by choice, but instead they are alive as a result of medical technology. Critics of a right to die may argue that euthanizing a terminally ill person crosses the line and that they are then "playing God." However, is this not what medical professionals are doing by hooking these people up to machines and 24/7 IV drugs to keep them alive as long as possible? Left to nature alone, many terminally ill people would be facing death very soon anyway. There is no sense in using technological measures to preserve someone that would die without them. If one can make the choice to be put on life support and continue their lives with the help of artificial machines and drugs, they certainly should have the choice to NOT endure this. A person who is simply waiting for death, does not have a good quality of life, and if they wish to end their suffering, no other human being has the right to tell them not to.
- SSNickel March 1, 2009 5:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Commiting suiced can hurt other people. Family members could go into depression because a loved one commited suicide. And because of their deppression, they may ruin their lives and possibly commit suicide themselves.
- apfitz March 2, 2009 7:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You have to wonder what sort of family members they are if they would rather their loved ones suffer against their will.
All sorts of decisions we make in our lives cause others pain. This doesn't take away our right to make them.
- Blue Linchpin May 2, 2009 1:51AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Where do you draw the line between personal liberty and causing pain to others? People make choices everyday that make others sad. What other choices should we outlaw because it makes people sad? By your logic, we should make divorce illegal because it makes people sad (often even the people who want out of the marriage).
- STexas June 10, 2009 1:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
when one has experienced watching a loved one suffer with a dicease, views change . i've seen countless people "alive" with the assistance of pharmaceuticals , but they are not living. there is a difference. one way or another quality of life has gone out the window. doctors and lawyers and drug companies brainwash the public and distort their views. do you want to know why?? PROFIT! its about all the money to be made and they get a piece of the pie.
though this is a difficult topic to digest, it is necessary otherwise one will fall into this endless cycle. i laugh at the fact that we so lovingly take our pets to the vet to be euthanized in order to end its suffering, but we can't offer the same for our human loved ones. what a hypocracy, and lets not forget the church who holds guilt over our heads telling us to leave to god when they can't keep scandals out of their back yards.
yes we need the right to die and if its a sin, then it is our personal issue to deal with. it is between the one making the choice and god.
- claudia3283 September 16, 2009 4:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I don't think it is moral for a doctor to assist a patient in suicide. If a patient wants to refuse treatment and be sent home to die a natural death, then fine. But to HELP someone kill themselves is an appalling thought.
- jitiac February 11, 2009 9:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"To save a man's life against his will is the same as killing him," (Horace). Under specific circumstances I believe that physician assisted suicide should be legalized. First, the patient must be terminally ill, as indicated by at least two physicians. This helps to avoid assisted suicides based on a state of depression that can later be overcome. With that, the patient must have expressed obvious consent, whether it be in his will or through serious and repetitive, verbal agreement directly with the physician while in a conscious and sane state. If time allows, this verbal agreement should then be signed in official documents. The method for assisted suicide should be swift and humane. Only a select few under the age of eighteen are even considered for assisted suicide; they must have nearly no chance of survival and expressed consent from the patient (if capable) and of the guardian(s).
- Nada February 18, 2009 12:40AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"To save a man's life against his will is the same as killing him" (Nada, Horace). Nada, you could not have chosen a better quote as this summarizes the entire point of assisted suicide. We often ponder in life and literature about what life really is; whether it is physically living every day, or the summation of the experiences we encounter. I tend to believe life is a summation of what we do in our time, no matter how long that is. If I can no longer have quality experiences in life, as I would define them, I would rather not live, and that seems to be the sentiment of some people who are currently in that siutation.
- StriveforYourDreams March 1, 2009 9:16AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This argument raises a very valid point about our hypocrisy. While there is much debate about whether a fetus is considered a human at the time an abortion can be performed, many associations, including governing bodies of medicine, as cited in the argument, are pro-abortion, but not pro assisted suicide. This is very strange considering many people consider abortion as taking a life.
"Not all human life has the same value all of the time" Considering this statement, if a terminally ill person no longer sees a value in what remains of their life, they should be able to choose to end it. We are supposed to be able to make decisions about what we value in our lives and what we want to do in our lives; if life is not worth living, in our minds, we should be able to do something about it.
- StriveforYourDreams March 1, 2009 9:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
My earlier post was based on studies from sociology. Now that I have found the actual source to qualify my position that, yes, physician assisted suicide should be enacted in certain situations, here is a post of guidelines from the Netherlands in the Rotterdam court in 1981 copied directly from InternationalTaskForce.org – Euthanasia in the Netherlands:
1. The patient must be experiencing unbearable pain.
2. The patient must be conscious.
3. The death request must be voluntary.
4. The patient must have been given alternatives to euthanasia and time to consider these alternatives.
5. There must be no other reasonable solutions to the problem.
6. The patient’s death cannot inflict unnecessary suffering on others.
7. There must be more than one person involved in the euthanasia decision.
8. Only a doctor can euthanize a patient.
9. Great care must be taken in actually making the death decision.
- Nada March 1, 2009 9:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This is one of those issues where the opposition is purely moral/religion based. I can't see any reason not to let a terminally Ill person end their own life. I also see no problem giving that person the means to do so.
- tbcass February 4, 2009 6:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This argument is effective in how it addresses the other side and then refutes it using not just opinion, but statistical information that helps to prove his point. Robert Nelson is able to dismiss the other side by using Oregon as ten years of proof as to how those who are against physician assisted suicide for fears such as people being forced to end their lives involuntarily are wrong in their claims. He is taking the basis of the other side and using it to his own advantage.
- Nada March 1, 2009 8:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
We've all heard it. The economy is going downhill. It's rare now to have a conversation without this coming up. As for how this relates to the terminally ill...well, I think that just because we have the technology and equipment to keep alive longer doesn't mean it should be used constantly. It's a waste of money, and time. Those who are terminally ill deserve to die a nice, peaceful, natural death. They shouldn't have to be kept alive by machines, suffering through their last moments of life. If the elderly choose go out with some dignity and on their own terms, then by all means let them. They deserve that at least.
- Inigo Montoya February 3, 2009 10:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The economic benefits of the death of a human being is the WRONG thing to look at in this situation. We are talking about a human life here, people! Whether the person means anything to you or not, they DO mean something to someone else. It is twisted and immoral to look at this from an economic standpoint. This proves that as a nation we care for nobody but ourselves. This seriously depreciates the value of human life. If you think a person has the right to die, then that's fine and you have a right to your opinion... but to say that it's a good "social policy" is absurd. This is about the individual. Sure, there are times when the interests of the individual is sacrificed for the greater good, but not in the case of the suffering terminally ill and their families.
- jitiac February 11, 2009 9:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
One concern about euthanasia is that people may be induced to end their lives for economic reasons, such as not wishing to be a burden on their families. For example, what if a man or woman decided to suicide because medication was too expensive, or the cost of life-saving surgery was prohibitive, or nursing home care was beyond the reach of their family?
I think most people would feel uneasy about suicide to save money.
- Michael Glass
February 11, 2009 9:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I disagree with you assertion that “this proves that as a nation we care for nobody but ourselves.” It may seem cruel to think of a human life in terms of the money it costs to sustain it, but it is by no means selfish to sacrifice one’s own life (a depreciated life, mind you, one that depends almost entirely on machines and modern medicine) to benefit the “greatest social good,” as Nelson puts it. You may think of it as wrong (and you have clearly stated you do, via your emphatic capital letters), and it very well may be. But it is not self-serving. It is the opposite of self-serving. It is serving the greater good, amoral as that may seem to you. What is selfish is pouring indefinite amounts of the government’s heath care money into keeping a person alive that does not even want to live any longer. Letting a patient choose die is the obvious choice for both the patient and the economy, harsh as that may seem.
- Yesterday March 1, 2009 6:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Economically Necessasry?
I totaly agree with the come commentsmade by jitiac and Michael Glass.
And using to because of health care costs will eventually have people choosing it because they can't afford to pay for health care, even if they want to live. Legal euthanasia would make it much better financially for doctors to have their patients "choose" to die instead of getting long-term care.
- apfitz March 2, 2009 7:16AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I completely agree with this argument.
We have the freedom to decide if we see suicide fit. It is our life- we do not need anyone's "permission to live," as the article states, so why would we then need someone's approval to die? We all must find ways to be happy, but if horrible medical disasters delete all existence of that happiness, we should then be able to decide to die. "To hold otherwise--to declare that society must give you permission to kill yourself--is to contradict the right to life at its root."
The law should not inhibit individuals from assessing their life and making decisions that apply, almost exclusively, to them. If someone (a doctor) is willing to help a person who is suffering and in need, I see no fault in it. As long as it was thought over and one of the last resorts, who's to say it is wrong for that individual?
"The choice is his because the life is his."
- Juno March 1, 2009 7:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Soldiers kill in war all the time because they follow orders to do so. People who commit suicide are following their own orders. In either case, it is the resolution of a conflict by its utmost clarity.
- Parsifal October 9, 2009 10:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that religion should not play a part in society concerning those who do not share the same beliefs. It is perfectly acceptable for a religious conservative to choose to continue a life of illness, regardless of the amount of pain and suffering they must endure, in order to fulfill their duties to their God. However, we all need to realize that not all of us share the same beliefs, and the ideas of one religious group should not have the right to let their beliefs dictate what others do. Choosing to end one's own life because they are terminally ill, in pain, and unable to enjoy the life they are living, is the person's choice, and theirs alone; they are not harming anyone else by choosing to die. Critics of this may argue that they are causing emotional suffering for their loved ones when they choose to end their own life, but watching a loved one live a life of pain and suffering is often equally, if not more painful, than watching them pass away in peace. The feelings of people with both opinions as to which of these scenarios is worse should be equally considered.
- SSNickel March 1, 2009 5:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Conservatives. Always trying to wheedle their personal, religious-based morals into legislature. When will they learn.
Their argument against playing God doesn’t make sense, or else it backfires, because who’s to say what “playing God” is? Couldn’t one argue that keeping a body alive sheerly with modern medicine and technology is playing God? So keeping a terminally ill patient, or a person in a vegetative state, alive is just as much playing God as killing the patient is.
- Yesterday March 1, 2009 8:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
In Oregon, legislation was introduced in 1997 to permit physician-assisted suicide. Later in 1997, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide; however, the Court did not preclude individual states from legislating in favor of physician-assisted suicide. The Oregon legislation has, in consequence, remained operative and has been successfully utilized by a number of people. Under the Death With Dignity law, a person who sought physician-assisted suicide would have to meet certain criteria:
• The person must be terminally ill.
• The person must have six months or less to live.
• The person must make two oral requests for assistance in dying.
• The person must make one written request for assistance in dying.
• The person must convince two physicians that he or she is sincere and not acting on a whim, and that the decision is voluntary.
• The person must not have been influenced by depression.
• The person must be informed of "the feasible alternatives," including, but not limited to, comfort care, hospice care, and pain control.
• The person must wait for 15 days.
Oregon has taken the first step toward a universal law allowing physician-assisted suicide. While the rest of America has yet to follow suit, there are some groups of people who also strongly advocate the use of euthanasia. Their criteria for the procedure is as follows:
Advocates of voluntary euthanasia contend that if a person
(a) is suffering from a terminal illness;
(b) is unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure for that illness during what remains of her life expectancy;
(c) is, as a direct result of the illness, either suffering intolerable pain, or only has available a life that is unacceptably burdensome (because the illness has to be treated in ways that lead to her being unacceptably dependent on others or on technological means of life support);
(d) has an enduring, voluntary and competent wish to die (or has, prior to losing the competence to do so, expressed a wish to die in the event that conditions (a)-(c) are satisfied); and
(e) is unable without assistance to commit suicide,
then there should be legal and medical provision to enable her to be allowed to die or assisted to die.
Whether to live or die should strictly be the patient’s choice. While it should be taken into account the mental stability of the patient, the choice of life or death should ultimately come down to the decision of the patient, not a Supreme Court ruling. The debate of euthanasia stands only on moral and ethical grounds. It is a personal choice, and because of this, there cannot be laws forbidding it. If legalized, it can be used by those that qualify and want to use it, and those that do not want to use it do not have to. It is left to choice. In other words, if legalized, it will only benefit those that want to use it, and those that do not want to will not be affected. Since a law allowing euthanasia will only directly affect those that chose to use it, and because your body is your own, and your choice to live or die is your own, euthanasia should be a viable option for those that qualify.
Young, Robert, "Voluntary Euthanasia", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
http://law.jrank.org/pages/6602/Euthanasia-Oregon-s-Euthanasia-Law.html
- bloggernumber1 February 28, 2009 10:06AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
These seem like reasonable requirements to me. Since it is, as you said, a personal choice, I see no reason why people who fit into these categories should not be able to request their own death. The boundaries set by Oregon are very strict and, as long as they are adhered to strictly, provide no possible wiggle room for mistakes or misjudgments.
Physician-assisted suicide is also legal under certain circumstances in the Netherlands, since April 1, 2002. The rules are as restrictive as in Oregon; in fact, two thirds of the requests to physicians for euthanasia are refused. The following is an excerpt from a brochure detailing the Netherlands’ new rules concerning euthanasia:
“The new Act on euthanasia does not change the legal status of termination of life on request or assisted suicide. They are still offenses under the Criminal Code. Doctors are exempt from prosecution, however, if they comply with the statutory criteria for due care and notify the municipal pathologist of their actions. The pathologist then notifies one of the five regional review committees.
“The due care criteria are as follows. Doctors must:
a. be satisfied that the patient’s request is voluntary and well-considered.
Note: This means that the request must not be made owing to pressure from or influence by other people or as the result of a mental disorder. The patient must fully understand the nature of his condition, his prospects and the types of treatment available. He must also have repeatedly expressed the wish to die;
b. be satisfied that the patient’s suffering is unbearable, and that there is no prospect of improvement;
c. inform the patient about his situation and further prognosis;
d. discuss the situation with the patient and come to the conclusion that there is no reasonable alternative;
e. consult at least one other physician with no connection to the case, who must then see the patient and state in writing that the attending physician has satisfied the due care criteria listed in a. to d. above; and
f. exercise due medical care and attention in terminating the patient’s life or assisting in his suicide.
Note: The doctor must perform euthanasia himself. He may not have someone else do it. In cases of assisted suicide, the doctor must remain with or near the patient until death occurs.”
In the Netherlands, as well as in Oregon, euthanasia is tolerated under certain conditions. Opponents need to understand that physicians will not go around administrating lethal injections to anyone who wants it. There are strict regulations that a patient must meet in order to be considered. Other states should seriously consider adopting this legislature in the best interest of their citizens who are suffering through the culmination of a fatal disease.
Euthanasia, the Netherlands` new rules." The ministry of Health, Welfare and
Sport. 8 Apr. 2002. 1 Mar. 2009
euthanasia_the_netherlands_new_rules.asp>.
- Yesterday March 1, 2009 5:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- redondo July 26, 2008 10:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- Juno March 1, 2009 8:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
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.
- gocatholic January 12, 2009 7:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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)
- Keri February 11, 2009 10:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- gocatholic February 12, 2009 12:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
...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).
- bagpiper2005 February 12, 2009 11:19AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- gocatholic February 12, 2009 2:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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.
- bagpiper2005 February 12, 2009 2:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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".
- gocatholic February 12, 2009 2:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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
- Dying Utopia January 12, 2009 11:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- zachgrgry January 25, 2009 9:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- zachgrgry February 5, 2009 10:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- Juno March 1, 2009 6:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Rather than supporting their argument with statistics and other useful information, the American Life League destroys their credibility by stating "This is ludicrous and inhumane" to those in favor of the right to die. Insulting an argument based on your beliefs does nothing but change your image from a credible organization to a ranting critic. Furthermore, they do nothing to expand on their point that "The proper response to terminal illness is to alleviate pain, provide comfort and share one’s self in every way possible so that the dying person is never isolated". Had the American Life League explained their reasons and stayed away from outbursts, this would have been a very good argument.
- SweeneyToddInc February 17, 2009 8:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Euthanasia is not synonymous with "a right to die". Everyone has a right to die, just as everyone has a right to live. And everyone always has those rights, whether they are able to voice it or not. As for the terminally ill who are not physically able to speak for themselves, it would be inhumane to "pull the plug", the ending of human lives is never something to be taken lightly. But isn't it also inhumane to prolong death when the patient is truly suffering in life?
- Inigo Montoya February 26, 2009 10:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
What if there is documentation that death is what the person wants? This is why there are living wills.
- StriveforYourDreams March 1, 2009 10:01AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
While oftentimes the proper approach to a dying person is to “alleviate pain, provide comfort and share one’s self in every was possible so that they dying person is never isolated,” as the American Life League states, sometimes this is not effective. In fact, according to Susan Tolle, director of the Ethics Center at the Oregon Health Sciences University, at least two thirds of dying patients do not get adequate pain medication. This is partially due to the fact that doctors are concerned about potential addiction to the drug, but this is clearly not an issue with patients who are not long for this world, anyway. Nevertheless, doctors have a difficult time transitioning to the state of mind where addiction is not a concern.* So many patients do not get adequate pain medication when they are suffering from a terminal illness; it cannot be relied on as a means by which to make the patient's last days happy or even tolerable.
What’s more, pain alone is often not the only reason a person may wish to end their life. The loss of dignity and economical reasons may also play a big part in their decision.
*Kathleen M. Foley, M.D., “The Relationship of Pain and Symptom Management to Patient Requests for Physician Assisted Suicide,” Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (July 1991), pp. 289-297.
- Yesterday March 1, 2009 8:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You’re exactly right; the American Life League definitely damages its ethos by making blatant statements like “This is ludicrous and inhumane.” Without effective evidence, as you stated, like statistics, this argument is left empty; it fails to actually argue its point. Instead, the American Life League chooses to impose its beliefs rather than prove them.
- Nada March 1, 2009 9:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Your question is a little off: does anyone have a right to die ? We all will die, do we have a right to choose the terms is more to the point. As a Christian, I believe not. I believe death is a part of God's purpose for my life. Do I have a right to "impose" my belief on others? ... perhaps not except so far as I may vote against a referendum on euthanasia.
On the other hand, the state does not have a right to determine the circumstances of my death (assuming I'm not the villain in a capital case)-- neither do doctors or hospital administrators who need an empty bed. Allowing euthanasia will not only encourage the depressed and elderly to seek death for reasons other than terminal illness and grave pain, but will lead to the kind of abuses found in The Netherlands and Belgium where many cases of euthanasia are discovered not to have been voluntary.
- Terro June 9, 2009 2:18PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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?
- marloma July 12, 2008 7:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
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.
- Miga August 28, 2008 7:51AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
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.
- PvM September 9, 2008 5:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
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.
- Blue Linchpin December 16, 2008 11:22AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
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.
- SSNickel February 9, 2009 9:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
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.
- tripleayex February 10, 2009 8:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- Keri February 11, 2009 11:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- Nada March 1, 2009 7:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Oh, please. If suicide is murder , masturbation is rape.
- Blue Linchpin June 10, 2009 5:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
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.
- Submariner June 10, 2009 7:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
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.
- mike1948 August 3, 2009 8:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Some Views:
1) Since we are mortal by extension we are denied life at some point and thus do possess such a "right".
2) The rights acknowledged by much of the world's powers are just that: acknowledged rights not absolute rights (no matter how you label them). If rights were in-fact endowed by our creator then "He" would have to set down penalties for when those rights are abridged and enforce those punishments. Hell as a punishment is not that effective since not everyone believes in Hell and thus are not deterred by such a punishment.
3) To expect someone to act for the benefit of someone else is presumptuous and demeaning. You place the needs of one person above those of another. Should I suffer so my son does not have to deal with the consequences of my death?
- polobo August 22, 2008 4:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Pro-Life assigns some absolute net positive value to a person's life (non-living == 0). Our "creator" calculates this number and assigns it to each person. When the creator assigns a value of "0" to an individual they die. The relationship of free-will into this calculation is unclear (since it appears that other persons besides the subject can set the value to zero but not the subject themselves).
Pro-Choice considers this value to be relative and thus possibly both positive and negative (non-living == 0). Furthermore, the person calculating and using that value is the same individual (subject). When the value becomes negative the subject dies. When another person, without the permission of the subject, sets that value it is considered wrong in the eyes of the subject and the subject, through society or self-action, will react. Sometimes it is necessary for the subject to have assistance in setting the value to zero after it has become negative.
- polobo August 22, 2008 4:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
A positive right is not an obligation! A right to live does not prohibit me from ending my own life, just as a right to shelter does not prohibit me from exposing myself to the elements if I so choose.
The problem with this issue, at root, is that a non-institutionalized person has an innate right to death simply because they can commit suicide any number of ways if they choose to, but a terminally ill patient is often unable to pursue this choice because they are in an institutionalized setting, and they lack to means to actualize this choice, especially when legislation prohibits it. I can kill myself now, but if I find myself in a great deal of suffering due to a terminal illness, I may not longer be able to.
Why should we impose this on those people who have the worst quality of life when it is, in actually, not imposed on most others? It seems like the terminally ill patient has lost a right he or she already had, and when they lose this right in such a situation where the right becomes more appealing and necessary, this is an outright injustice.
- nevermath October 4, 2008 12:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I fully agree with you but I guess I was associating the view of Pro-Lifers with the position that suicide should be illegal and is, in any rate, "immoral" or "sinful". That is the fundamental difference that cannot be resolved; and if those immorals/sins are prohibited by society then any assistance in accomplishing the immoral/sinful behavior would be punished as well.
- polobo October 4, 2008 1:22PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
That was meant to be a global reply, to the original argument. I think what you're saying is a good characterization of the fundamental difference you speak of, and I wasn't trying to call your post into question.
I do think that there can be arguments which ignore this fundamental difference and focus on practical legalities. But nonetheless, until "pro-lifers" can recognize what I see as a clear-cut right of self-determination and autonomy (and an obligation on their part to recognize my right) this can't be resolved.
- nevermath October 4, 2008 1:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If they recognize that then they are arguably not pro-life anymore...which is the only true way to resolve the issue - convince those weakly pro-lifers or undecideds to support the pro-choice position and protect (legally) those who would help people realize their end-of-life decisions. I don't see how any practical legality is going to effect such a fundamental belief if held strongly. Then, aside from the fundamentalism, there are valid points being made concerning actual consequences of such support mechanisms. It just seems many of the consequences revolved around inter-personal actions (influence/obligation to die, etc...) which presuppose that people are like sheep and need shepherds to protect them - a common "pro-life" theme which, while valid, is fundamentally different to the pro-choice theme where individuals are expected to be able to think and decide for themselves.
- polobo October 4, 2008 2:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Any right recognized by a government also have a counterpart: the right to refuse. For example, a suspect in a crime has the right to an attorney in the US; he may also refuse this right and choose to represent himself in the courtroom. Once the choice to refuse disappears, the 'right' is no longer a right and is instead an obligation, forced onto a person through the law and courts. In order to claim that a person has the right to live, one must recognize that this means he also has the right to refuse to live, and to exercise that right by taking his own life.
- miseleigh January 6, 2009 5:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I completely agree with the statement that everyone has the right to live. We are ALL going to die one way or another sooner or later. But we can only experience life once. I think the terminally ill have the right to live, and doctors should do everything in their power to help them make the most of the life they have left. Organizations such as the Make a Wish Foundation for terminally ill children make this possible. What a shame to waste life and let it fall to the wayside when during the time of suffering doctors and others, us, even, can be going the extra mile to make these people feel loved and appreciated rather than letting them resort to suicide.
- jitiac February 11, 2009 9:13AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Everyone does have a right to live. But when it is said that everyone has a right to die, it doesn't negate their right to living. It simply means they have the right to end their own life, should they choose to. However, a person's life is to be treasured, and it's sad that any terminally ill patient may feel their life in insignificant enough that they should no longer get to live it.
- Inigo Montoya February 26, 2009 11:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 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?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your body, your decision
When it comes down to it, no one else should be able to tell me when I should be alive or dead. If I am terminal and life gets to the point where it is not worth living, or if I am a in a vegetative state, I don't want people keeping me alive against my wishes. Look, I understand why religious groups argue the "sanctity of life", but what those people don't understand is there are others out there who don't share their beliefs, who would rather not see people live through excruciating pain to an inevitable death if given the choice.
- housemusik July 11, 2008 11:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (6)
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.
So True
Exactly.
A person should have the right to decide what they want to do with their own lives. Not only does it satisfy what certain people want, but it is an alternative that would also help ease the economic situation as well (life-stabilizing machines are so expensive). An individual should be allowed to have input in how they live (or choose not to live) their own life. Watching someone suffer and not fulfilling their wishes should be illegal.
- Juno March 1, 2009 7:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Right On
Anyone who is terminally ill should get a say in if they live or die. Keeping someone alive against their wishes just isn't fair to the patient. If a man is dying of cancer and is in serious pain with no hope or chance of living, why make him suffer for the next few months just because you don't want them to go. I lost my great-uncle to lung cancer about 7 years ago. Sure it was hard to accept the reality of his death, but I don't think he would want me to cry over it for the rest of my life.
- HUNTER
March 3, 2009 5:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
RE: Your Body, Your Decision
You say that people control their own destiny, thereby they can pull the plug. But, the idea of terminal illness means one is in a coma, not able to make decisions for his/herself. So, I truly see your point on "I can do what I want with my body", but let's take a step back: legally, is the person's body even belong to them when he/she is terminally ill? Apparently not, according to some legal sites. Furthermore, how do we know this person who is terminally ill truly wants to give up life? Hey, Tony Soprano came out of his coma. All kidding aside, it is time that the supreme court take a stand for or against this. And who determines if the person should live or die? The state? The physician? The loved ones? If I actually had a loved one in this state of being, it would be excruciatingly hard for me to see her like that. But, who would I be to pull the plug? It's not my decision, and it's not truly her decision either, as that would be suicide. A very complicated issue. Glad its on here
- Sundevil
July 13, 2008 10:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who else can own my body?
"one is in a coma...legally, is[sic] the person's body even blong to them...?"
Since we do not recognize the ability of another individual or society to own a person and assigning ownership to some possibly non-existent deity that does not manifest themselves to us to whom would ownership transfer? Since the answer must be either "no-one" or "them" then in both cases the action to end the life would be justified since in the former case no own would be present to object or be affected and in the later "them" has requested such action to be taken.
- polobo
August 22, 2008 3:57PM
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.
Uhh
I think that you have been mislead in your definition of "terminally ill". A terminal illness is one that is without cure or adequate treatment and that will inevitably lead to death. This isn't about being in a coma: much of the time, this is about insufferable extreme amounts of pain. Lasting through this pain until you die on your own doesn't make this stage of living any more valuable. Knowing that for sure, this individual is NOT going to come out of this pain and suffer a horrible excruciating death, who has the right to say that they should be forced to endure this?
- tripleayex
February 15, 2009 8:57AM
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.
Always my decision
Even if I'm in a coma, my wishes should be known to my loved ones. Just because they now have the legal authority to make decisions on my behalf, they are still making them on my behalf. If it's clear that they're making a decision that I would not have wanted, that decision can be challenged.
It is effectively impossible to prevent someone from killing one's self. We have to presume that someone desiring suicide simply needs help, but when it's clear that, despite all of the help we can give them, life is still not worth living, why should we doom them to live it out in misery? The lucky ones here are the ones that had the sense not to tell anyone they were planning on suicide, because they'll be the ones that can do it without short-sighted, selfish intervention.
When my pet is in a state of terminal suffering, I would want them to be euthanized. Why do we treat people we love worse?
- Fastolfe July 24, 2008 12:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Who owns my life?
Without a personal right to die, there can be no right to live. It is the fact of one's life that give one any rights at all. The basic right to live, to be happy, necessarily includes the right to take one's own life.
I own my life, or I do not. If I do, I do fully. If I do not, this question is rather academic.
- Naumadd
July 24, 2008 8:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
yes
This was one factor in my recent move to the state of Oregon. Assisted suicide is legal here in cases of terminal illness. I'm very happy with that. Don't keep me around sucking up money, treatments and time if I can go peacefully and be done with it.
- philomom August 15, 2008 4:39PM
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.
An individual has the right to choose.
I have personally experienced the pain of someone suffering that did not wish to remain alive. All hope was gone and there was no chance of survival. That individual was obviously not given the choice to terminate his life. He had to suffer until death claimed him. There was no reason for him to continue suffering as he did. He could have went more comfortably. He was 22. He was my brother.
- kim42
September 4, 2008 11:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
RE: An Individual has the Right to Choose
In cases like you have just mentioned, I agree that there should have been the option of "terminating his life." The pain, the suffering, and the torture that he and your family had to go through I'm sure were unbearable.
However, if you make a statement such as "If in enough pain, killing should be an option," then how is it different from suicide?
...
- Keri
February 11, 2009 11:33PM
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.
Right to choose
I'm terribly sorry for your loss and I agree that he should have been given the right to choose. Your personal experience in dealing with this issue helps those of us who can only speculate as to what this situaiton is like. The last two lines are very powerful and compelling. Your experience will certainly help those of us who can merely speculate to understand the enormity of the situation. Thank you for sharing and once again, I'm terribly sorry.
- Big Mac
February 28, 2009 9:34AM
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.
Sometimes it is the ethical thing to do
There are situations in which there is no possible way to minimize suffering from a terminal illness, no matter what you do. We euthanize animals who have no quality of life all the time, and as much as I know humans hate to be called this, they are indeed animals (e.g. belonging to the animal kingdom).
If I have a terminal illness, and am unable to care for myself, I should have the right to choose to end my life. Saying someone does not have the right to die is selfish.
- bagpiper2005
September 24, 2008 6:35AM
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.
Saving Others When You Can't Be Saved
If I was in a vegetative state in the hospital...I would understand if they "pulled the plug." If someone else needed my organs to keep them alive and I was not using them for anything but to lay in bed unconscience I would want to give them up. There are people out there that have a greater chance of survival if they just had some sort of a transplant than those who are in a vegetative state, therefore saving the ones who CAN be saved...just makes since.
- Keri
January 25, 2009 7:15PM
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.
Miracles Happen
Simply Stated...Miracles Happen
there's still a chance you can survive no matter how long you've been hooked up to the machine
but also..
-you are taking up a hospital bed that may be needed to save someone elses life
and
-you are not "living" if machines are keeping you alive..your just..there
- Keri
January 25, 2009 7:20PM
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.
Be sure you have a living will in place
Or else you might not receive your "right to die" that so belongs to you. That's the part of the problem with modern medicine.
I have specified in my advanced directive (aka "living will") that I'm not to receive CPR, Life Support, Blood Transfusion, Feeding Tubes, Breathing Machines, etc.
In a nutshell...if something happens to me that will result in my death or result in a low quality of life afterward, my living will ensures my right to die to prevent prolonged suffering.
- bagpiper2005
January 26, 2009 4:24PM
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.
Re: Be sure you have a living will in place
Accidents happen.
Are you saying that if you..lets say..start drowning at the city pool.. that you do not want to be rescued? You taking in so much water would enable some one to perform CPR on you. If someone saved your life by doing this I don't think you will "result in a low quality life" afterwards. What are you going to do? Sue them for saving you? Are you going to go to court and say [in my "living will" I specifically said not to give me CPR therefore arrest this person, I should be dead right now.] (To me this just doesn't make since)
- Keri
February 11, 2009 10:29PM
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.
On the same token...
All it takes is 4 minutes of being oxygen deprived for the brain to become damaged. Life with any degree of brain damage would not be worth living. If I was rescued, survived, and had even the slightest bit of brain damage, would I sue? No. That wouldn't be worth it. I'd just blow my brains out. Same result as if I had died in the pool.
- bagpiper2005
February 12, 2009 11:08AM
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.
Riding the Fence
I do not believe that anyone can tell another person what to do with their body. Only the person suffering through the illness knows what kind of pain they are in. Who would I be to say that their pain is not significant enough for them to wish to die? That is not my judgement to make. While I am a Christian and I do personally believe that God gives life and has the authority to take it away, I also do not believe that it is MY right to tell someone else that they can not die. If the patient has religious convictions that causes him or her to feel that they should NOT just give up and allow themselves to die then that should be for the individual to decide as well.
As far as the issue of euthanasia is concerned, I do not condone a doctor helping a patient die. I have a hard time getting my mind around the idea of "assisted suicide," because to me it looks a lot like murder. I can not see why a moral person would try to help someone else die. However, if a patient wants to refuse treatment and be sent home to die a natural death, then I believe that is acceptable.
In forming my opinion on this issue I tried to put myself in the place of a terminally ill patient. If I was lying in a hospital waiting to die, running up medical bills for my loved ones to have to struggle to pay after my death, then I would more than likely make the decision to halt treatment and go home to spend the remainder of my time with my family and friends. If being in the hospital was only prolonging the inevitable, what quality of life would that be? To me, it would only make sense to use what life I had left to MAKE the rest of my time "quality" time.
- jitiac
February 2, 2009 9:44PM
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.
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.
Everyone Dies
Dying is not a “right.” There is no miracle drug that will give ‘us’ eternal life on Earth, everyone will die at some point, it’s just a matter of when, and in this case, why? The debatable question is, “Are the terminally ill being murdered if their life support is taken away from them?” The decision to “pull the plug” should be relied on the condition of the “ill” and how “ill” they truly are. If the “ill” are in a vegetative state and could donate organs to save someone else, then they should, even if it means “killing” the “ill.”
- Keri
February 6, 2009 2:15PM
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.
My Body, why can't I pull the plug?
If I was lying in a hospital bed with no chance of recovery, I would say "LET ME DIE!" Why should someone have to suffer if they do not have a chance at recovery? We euthanize animals that are sick. People are animals, even though we like to put ourselves into our own kingdom.
I would feel terrible watching a loved one suffer, and would feel equally as terrible if my family had to watch me suffer. That does no good for anyone. If you let someone go, everyone has their good memories instead of a lasting impression of the person's demise.
Think economically. A day in a hospital costs thousands; even with insurance, the cost of keeping someone on life support or treated with medication can be astronomical. Some people just do not have that money. Plus, the bed that is being occupied could be used for someone else that may have a better chance at life.
If the ill person is an organ donor, they could possibly save the lives of numerous people. If they want to do that, shouldn't we let them? That would not only make a difference in the lives of the people who get a second chance, but it would make a difference to their families and loved ones.
Ultimately, we are supposed to have control of our bodies, so death should be included in that.
- StriveforYourDreams
February 8, 2009 7:16PM
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.
The terminally ill should have the right to die.
Can the amount of suffering and torment be justified in a terminally ill patient just because we have the means to keep a dying human being alive? I certainly don’t think so. The controversy has been raging for quite some time. The Supreme Court decided in 1997 that a person does not have the legal right to die. However, what should one do when his or her agony is endless and there is no chance for improvement, and only the slow diminishing state of illness? In 1991 an author named Derek Humphrey penned a manual, entitled Final Exit on how to commit suicide through suffocation to self starvation. This manual became a best seller and demonstrated the fact that many people agree that the terminally ill should have the right to die. With medical assisted suicide, the patient would be given one lethal injection and the suffering would be relieved in minutes. Is this humane end to constant, prolonged agony preferable to the horrendous suicide through suffocation in a plastic bag? The medically aided suicide ensures an end to torment and the suicide techniques described in Final Exit are certainly ways to end a life. However, they may fail or be extremely painful. Perhaps an analogy can provide more insight into what the situation is like to the patient. A terminal illness can be likened to living in a shell, where the organism continually grows larger, yet the shell does not. The pain slowly becomes worse until the organism dies in sheer agony.
Another careful consideration should be directed towards the family of the terminally ill patient. These loved ones also endure the misery that the patient is enduring. The family understand the helpless situation their loved in is in and that death is certain after a prolonged, ceaseless, and unendurable suffering. In the Netherlands, the right to die with medical assistance came into legislation in 1981. The terminally ill patient must meet these 5 requirements.
1. The patient must repeatedly request a doctor’s help in dying after a careful, voluntary consideration.
2. The suffering must be intolerable and there must be no prospect of improvement.
3. The patient and doctor must discuss alternatives.
4. The suicide must follow medical procedure exactly.
5. The doctor must confer with an acquaintance of the patient who has access to his or her medical records.
I think it is time for the US to reverse the decision of the 1997 case. Do the terminally ill have the right to die? I believe so.
- Big Mac
February 24, 2009 5:33PM
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.
The true story of Karen Ann Quinlan
Most on this site are familiar with the Terry Schiavo case. However, I doubt that many of you are familiar with the story of Karen Ann Quinlan. Recently while researching this matter more, I came across this true, tragic story. In 1975, 21 year old Karen Ann Quinlan had been found unconscious after consuming lethal amounts of alcohol and drugs. Once she had arrived at the hospital, Quinlan had not had a pulse for about 15 minutes. She was revived and put on a respirator right away, however massive brain damage had already occurred. For over a year, the doctors tried desperately to save her. While she was still “alive”, Quinlan had dropped to about 70 pounds and remained in comatose. She would not speak, hear, or see ever again the doctors had said. Quinlan’s parents visited her every day and realized the hope for a meaningful life had vanished. The family went to court to have their daughter taken off the machines. The family was denied by the NJ Superior Court, so they appealed to the NJ Supreme Court. The court upheld their request and further said that neither the family nor the doctors could be held criminally responsible for Karen Ann Quinlan’s death. The physicians at St Clare’s Hospital were legally forced to remove her from the respirator, but they placed her in a special 24 hour care unit. She received numerous drugs, feeding tube supplements, and massages. Quinlan never emerged from the coma, but did not die either. The family of Karen Ann Quinlan could not bear seeing their daughter’s pain prolonged so they moved her to another facility where the suffering would not be prolonged. She survived another 9 torturous years in which she never once awoke from the coma. Her family had to watch her lie motionless in the fetal position for about ten years. She never once smiled, responded or heard anything her parents said to her. Is this really how you think Karen Ann Quinlan wished to spend 1/3 of her short life? I certainly don’t believe so. All of the machines should have been turned off or Karen Ann Quinlan should have been given one lethal injection to end her terrible suffering and also her family’s. This is a true story and not merely speculative. For this reason it is more valid and easier to see what the consequences of the prolonging of the terminally ill are. Picture a loved one or friend in this case. What would you do? This story can be found in The Right to Die by Elaine Landau.
- Big Mac
February 28, 2009 10:59AM
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.