I think this has been debated before, but it'd be nice to start a new one.

For the record, this debate is to deal solely with the issue of voluntary euthanasia, where a patient, being of sound mind, has requested death clearly and repeatedly. Non-voluntary euthanasia, when the patient is in a coma or otherwise unable to communicate, isn't what I want argued.

Anybody have any thoughts?

I think that every person has a right to death as much as a right to life. If somebody is dying from a terminal illness and is in extreme pain, we have absolutely no right to force them to endure it against their wishes.

I'm guessing you mean that they ask for euthanasia when healthy of mind in the event that they deteriorate?

Anyway, I pretty much agree with that. The problem is, defining when someone has met their own conditions for euthanasia. If left to the families, the decision could be manipulated by other factors (benificiary of a will, perhaps?). If doctors, the cost of keeping them alive might play a part in a decision. Although, like many things, it has complications, at the most basic, I agree with that sort of euthanasia.

Voluntary euthanasia can only go ahead with the full consent of the patient; there are no other conditions. While the family and doctors will have an opinion and some input, the final decision rests with the patient alone.

Agree with you Commie.

Right to do what we want with our bodies, if we want to end them, so be it.

You won't believe it...we spent about a month putting together a debate for this in my english class. I'll be brief.

Yes, I believe in voluntary euthanasia if the person is suffering from a terminal illness or extreme pain. I do not think voluntary euthanasia works if the person has a mental problem that is not extremely serious (i.e., not serious or manic depression) and can be helped. Otherwise, yes, people have a right to do with their bodies as they wish concerning voluntary euthanasia. (There's a lot about right-to-die issues voiced in many ways and situations at the ASH archive)

I believe in the right to voluntary euthanasia, regardless of medical conditions...

If you want to die, you want to die. Whether you're nuts, sick or physically healthy. If you want to die, living would be a real drag.

If somebody is suffering from, for instance, clinical depression, or another disorder that would affect their judgment in this matter, I don't think their request to be euthanised should be honoured.

If someone is terminally ill and has requested to be allowed to die then they should be allowed to, if an animal is terminally ill they get "put out of their misery" asap with no questions asked so why should a human be forced to live...especially if they don't want to?

Yeah, Snoo, problem being we don't really know whether or not an animal wants to die =\

(yes, commie, you can make meaningful sentences of what I mean rather than my ramblings. thank you )

yeah but we don't know if comatose people want to die either, and if they have specifically asked to be allowed to die if they end up that way then they should be allowed to

Had I been of legal voting age when Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act, it would have won by one more vote. It still passed overwhelmingly, if I recall. I was only about 12 or 13 at the time, and all of my knowledge of it is what I remember from back then.

As far as I know we're still the only state in America where euthanasia is legal. Yet, doctors here get into trouble if they actually try to perform it, since federal laws supercede state laws and the federal government says it's a no-no.

I don't understand exactly *why* some people are against it. If someone is terminally ill and in a lot of pain, what is so wrong with ending their suffering? Everyone here has stated what I believe, but perhaps some of you have an insight as to why others are opposed to it.

I think it has a lot to do with it being considered murder, and possibly religious reasons.

Some people fear a "slippery slope", and legalising euthanasia will lead to us killing old people, or something stupid like that.

Well the Nazis euthenised the elderly, but I feel there's a pretty big difference between the 3rd reich and the USA.

I think most arguments against it are based in religious views. It being God's body and such. I feel that religion and law should be seperated with a chainsaw.

Common misconception: they did not euthanise the elderly, they murdered the elderly and called it euthanasia. Most of those killed were perfectly capable of giving consent but did not.

Is non-volentary euthanasia not that very thing? I thought that non-volentary euthanasia was murder.

That's pretty much nonvoluntary euthanasia up there...usually when the patient is a coma/can't communicate and life support or other machines or medications are no longer given or provided to the patient.

Yep, according to Peter Singer's definitions which is the best to use IMO. "Involuntary euthanasia" is when the patient was capable of giving consent but did not, either through declining or because they were not asked. Extremely difficult to justify ethically, and even then in very specific cases.

I think that a persons request for voluntary euthanasia should be honoured and respected allowing them to maintain their dignity until the end.

My Nanna died of lung cancer and she was in agony and misery, she woke one morning and said that she had prayed that she would die that night! It's hard to see someone you love die like that and taking away their option to end that pain is, in my opinion, barbaric!

I am opposed to any euthenasia. It's probably simply because of my "No one should die until they absolutely must," and my, in general, optimistic, nature. However, not only do I think that those people might be choosing to die before they must and just missing a cure, but I'm also thinking of the guilt the doctors who performed the procedure would go through. I mean, maybe some people just aren't as squeamish/sensitive/whatever as me, but I cry for a day when I accidentally bust people's lips, I'd hate to imagine how long it would take me to get over the pain of killing someone. However, I've never been through these diseases and such, so until I am (which hopefully will never be the case) I can't have a fully educated opinion. But, until then, I am firmly against euthenasia of any form.

I personally would feel guilty for allowing them to suffer needlessly...not for putting them out of their misery when that's what they wanted.

People can linger on for a long time, in a LOT of pain...only to end up dying anyway. Why prolong their suffering? That just seems cruel to me. What are they possibly gaining by living on in incredible amounts of pain, when there's no hope that they'll be cured?

That's another thing - what if all they need to die is taking them off some machine or meds? Is that considered murder? Even conscious people could go for a LONG time with machines helping them. If life support is the only thing holding you up, you're in extreme pain, and would die if the life support weren't there, what's the use? The cure thing is very iffy, though. I seriously doubt the cure would be created in time to help most people about to die from the disease, but that's wholly an opinion.

I think that if you want to die because you are in pain, either physical or emotional, then that is your choice, and you should be able to do as you wish.
I mean, we put animals down all the time because we take into consideration their pain, and we have no way of asking them if they want it or not. How is that okay, while a human can request their own death only to be denied?
If a person is being kept alive by machines or meds, then I think it should be up to the family to decide whether or not the person should be kept living. In my opinion, if you are a vegetable, and you cannot fulfill any kind of life beside lying in a hospital bed, then there is no reason for you to be alive. This may seem cruel, but it's even crueler to keep someone a vegetable. The family knows best, and would be able to make to best choice according to something that you would want for yourself.

Euthanasia for a dignified death, due to physical pain in terminal illneses, check. Sure. Sounds like the right thing to do.

I'm not so sure about emotional pain, though. I can't condone suicide. (Yes, I know this is a touchy subject around here, so I'll tread lightly). It seems a selfish act -- at the same time, I can't blame someone who feels that life is so painful that it just can't continue. But it's not something I think our society should portray as an acceptable way out. But that's just me, no offense meant to anyone else who feels differently.



My thoughts precisely.

God wouldn't that be terrible if that happened- suicide seeming to be an acceptable way out. I never thought of it that way, but it would probably turn out that way eventually. Like breast implants or something, it would start out small and then spread, so that even people who don't really mean it end up going through with it, and suicide is NOT one of those things that you can say "I didn't mean it, I was caught up in the moment", I mean, it's so final and scary. I take it back, I don't think I would support euthanasia for those who suffer emotional pain.

That's the thing, I don't think euthanasia for emotional pain works. There are just too many difficulties and special cases to be considered. I SERIOUSLY doubt suicide would be something like breast implants or a new fad. It's already something that a large chunk of people die from, and it's the ending of your life. That can't really be compared to anything else, not even people thinking having lots of babies is the next big "thing". It wouldn't be necessarily bad, I personally don't think, if suicide were portrayed as an acceptable way out. I believe that every human has a right to die when they wish, but it would be way too difficult to incorporate that into euthanasia with there being another person involved. If a person is about to kill themselves I highly doubt they're thinking "but what if this is a bad, bad thing to do? What if everyone thinks this is not an acceptable way to die?" People who don't really want to commit suicide don't. That's pretty much a universal thing. Even people who want to commit suicide sometimes or all the time don't. It's final and scary for everyone in some way, because the ending of your life is...well, the end. Of everything for you. Don't be scared, suicide won't be a fad.

I agree with euthanasia - in the right circumstances. Obviously, the person needs to be of sound mind and not having an 'off' day.

But, it's also an issue that needs to be dealt with extremely carefully. You start doing it for terminally ill patients and at some point you're going to have a lot of other patients with perhaps not so serious illnesses jumping on the band wagon.

Such a sensitive issue.

well here's what my thoughts are...

there is such a thing as a living will and a DPA (i want to say Durable i don't think that's right tho but it's something power of attorney) both of these are available and to be used in case of an accident or old age, etc. those types of things talk about if you are in a coma and brain dead, do you want to be kept on life support ...it's really morbid but it talks and puts your decisions down in writing so that someone else, unless previously decided by you to make that decision, cannot just take your word and then kill you...even then, arguments can be made that the pain, suffering etc, made you out of mind, so thus not able to make decisions for yourself, that's why its nice (well i wouldn't say nice)-a good idea to put all that on paper, so when the time comes no one can make that decision, or confusingly mistake your decision

Yes, DoRmAnt, a "Do Not Rescucitate" order covers non-voluntary euthanasia, but we're debating the voluntary kind

erm... but isn't a DNR order requested by the patient, and agreed by the doctor and the next of kin before being put forward for acceptance? From what little I understand, there's a long process to obtain one of those, as it's essentially legal consent to end someone's life.

I agree with euthanasia to end physical suffering caused by terminal illness or critical injury. As Snoo pointed out, it's a luxury we afford to animals (pets are dying of old age, horses that break legs etc...), and one fully supported by law. In fact, prolonging an animal's agony in the clutches of death is considered cruelty. Why don't we afford humans this same luxury? Because it's illegal to kill a person, but not illegal to kill an animal. It doesn't make it right, but the law is the law, and there's all sorts of trouble waiting anyone who flouts it, however you argue it.

I don't think it should apply for people who are curably ill or injured, or to people who are mentally ill (this is essentially curable with therapy).

Fluffy - no offense, but if there was a chance of a cure coming along just after someone was euthenised, then it would never be given consent in the first place. There may well be a cure for cancer or AIDS round the corner, and it's widely known a cure is being worked on for both. Any breakthrough would be announced on a global scale months (or possibly years) before it's released, so there's no chance of a "miracle cure" happening just like that.

i know what a DNR is i was thinking of something else tho, but i guess that comes to play only if the person is not conscious or unable to make their own decisions. sorry, thought i was on a roll up there.