Discussion Stance on Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia

[Nemispelled]

Discourse on Assisted Suicide & Euthanasia​

Just as the title suggests, what is your opinion on the matter? Many see this option as a form of relief from suffering, while others see it as a moral issue.

At one end of the spectrum, advocates reason that it is a matter of individual freedom and that a person should decide whether he/she no longer deserves to suffer.

On the contrary, opponents of this idea believe that this may prompt many people to act prematurely (ex. depression, emotional triggers) and cause deaths that were not initially intended.

Which side are you on? Do you have any other compelling reasons for your opinion/perspective on this topic?

 

[SleipnirX]

Absolutely think the terminally ill should have the right to end their own life to spare themselves suffering. If you know you’re going to have something like Alzheimer’s or MS or motor neurone etc, why shouldn’t you have the option of not suffering through the worst of it? Some people might feel they don’t want to take that path, and nobody will force them to, but for those who wish to, it’s a chance of a more peaceful, dignified death. We do it for animals, why should humans be any different?

 

[M3J]

Their body their choice, basically. I'm not a fan of it, but we shouldn't be trying to control what they want to do. Plus, it's more merciful and humane than letting them die in agony, slowly.

 

[kkck]

The issue here is that it ultimately comes down to a religious debate. Religions tend to oppose euthanasia. Opposing euthanasia and implementing that as policy basically means you would be imposing a religious belief over someone that might not share said religious belief. I am not "for" euthanasia per say however as far as policy goes I find such blatant imposition of a religious belief over someone who does not necessarily share it be barbaric.

 

[Arjuna]

I am against Euthanasia. We should try to save lives not end them.


Let us take this example.Mr. X is suffering from a G disease and has only 2 years to live.He performs Euthanasia and passes away.But only after a year after his death the cure for G disease was found.So perhaps if he had not died then he would have been treated and saved.

 

[M3J]

The issue here is that it ultimately comes down to a religious debate. Religions tend to oppose euthanasia. Opposing euthanasia and implementing that as policy basically means you would be imposing a religious belief over someone that might not share said religious belief. I am not "for" euthanasia per say however as far as policy goes I find such blatant imposition of a religious belief over someone who does not necessarily share it be barbaric.

Religions are dumb and hypocritical anyway. Eff taht.

I am against Euthanasia. We should try to save lives not end them.


Let us take this example.Mr. X is suffering from a G disease and has only 2 years to live.He performs Euthanasia and passes away.But only after a year after his death the cure for G disease was found.So perhaps if he had not died then he would have been treated and saved.

But, why should that be your choice? As long as Mr. X is informed about possibilities and all, he should still have the right to get euthanasia if he wants. What if the cure doesn't fix his pain and health issues, but just kills the disease? He'll still likely want to die rather than live in horrible agony.

 

[Arjuna]

Religions are dumb and hypocritical anyway. Eff taht.

But, why should that be your choice? As long as Mr. X is informed about possibilities and all, he should still have the right to get euthanasia if he wants. What if the cure doesn't fix his pain and health issues, but just kills the disease? He'll still likely want to die rather than live in horrible agony.

And what if his health issues and pain are also cured then?

 

[kkck]

And what if his health issues and pain are also cured then?

That is just one plausible scenario. And a disease being cured from one year to the other is a wildly optimistic scenario... And also irrelevant to the discussion. What about people who are just plain terminal and in pain? What about older folk who simply want the out? Granted there can be a fair bit of nuance to this discussion (for instance, which groups might or not be more severely negatively affected by this or how insurance companies would react to euthanasia being recognized as a legitimate medical practice) but that fails to address any of it. The objections to euthanasia are still ultimately religious and shouldn't be forced onto people who don't share those views.

 

[M3J]

And what if his health issues and pain are also cured then?

What if they're not? What if the person doesn't care about the possibility of getting better if he sticks it out longer and wants to die? No one but he and the doctor have the right to decide that.

 

[Marmalade]

I think euthanasia can be a good thing.
Actually, its allowed here as long as you have proper reasons (Suffering from an illness that cannot be cured, an illness that will kill you later on anyway, things like that). But your mind has to be good enough to make that decision. So people with a mental illness are generally ruled out to make that decision, as their illness infuences them too much.
Same goes with people who have illnesses like dementia cannot consent for euthanasia, as their mind isn't considered capable of making choices like that.

While I get the point of waiting a bit longer, perhaps finding a cure, I do see that in some cases death is a better option. Suffering the rest of your (possibly short) life isn't something I'd wish for anyone.

I do have mixed feelings considering assisted suicide in the sense of a person doesn't want to live anymore, not because he/she is physically ill but because he/she doesn't see the purpose of life, is depressed, has other mental issues etc.
While mental illnesses can still be incredibly taxing, making the person who has it suffer so much... I kind of do agree with the law in my country saying those people might not be able to consent with a clear mind.
Chances are ofcourse that they will get better, but that is not always the case.

While I feel sometimes ending someone's suffering, by helping them end their lives, can be better (no more pain for that person/affects the people around him/her a lot as well), what would be the line? When would you allow it to happen, when do you not allow it to happen?

+ I'd rather have someone thinking it over, talking with doctors, maybe a psychiatrist etc about it and making the choice to end their lives - with the help of others - rather than finding a loved one hanging - or whatever manner they use - in their house. Not really the last memory you'd want to have of someone.

Religion wise.... I get that that can be quite the complication, as it tends to be fundamentally against suicide.
Is euthanasia considered suicide in various relgious though? Thats what I am wondering. Or is it murder (by the one assisting)

 

[kkck]

I think euthanasia can be a good thing.
Actually, its allowed here as long as you have proper reasons (Suffering from an illness that cannot be cured, an illness that will kill you later on anyway, things like that). But your mind has to be good enough to make that decision. So people with a mental illness are generally ruled out to make that decision, as their illness infuences them too much.
Same goes with people who have illnesses like dementia cannot consent for euthanasia, as their mind isn't considered capable of making choices like that.

While I get the point of waiting a bit longer, perhaps finding a cure, I do see that in some cases death is a better option. Suffering the rest of your (possibly short) life isn't something I'd wish for anyone.

I do have mixed feelings considering assisted suicide in the sense of a person doesn't want to live anymore, not because he/she is physically ill but because he/she doesn't see the purpose of life, is depressed, has other mental issues etc.
While mental illnesses can still be incredibly taxing, making the person who has it suffer so much... I kind of do agree with the law in my country saying those people might not be able to consent with a clear mind.
Chances are ofcourse that they will get better, but that is not always the case.

While I feel sometimes ending someone's suffering, by helping them end their lives, can be better (no more pain for that person/affects the people around him/her a lot as well), what would be the line? When would you allow it to happen, when do you not allow it to happen?

+ I'd rather have someone thinking it over, talking with doctors, maybe a psychiatrist etc about it and making the choice to end their lives - with the help of others - rather than finding a loved one hanging - or whatever manner they use - in their house. Not really the last memory you'd want to have of someone.

Religion wise.... I get that that can be quite the complication, as it tends to be fundamentally against suicide.
Is euthanasia considered suicide in various relgious though? Thats what I am wondering. Or is it murder (by the one assisting)

Come on, the bit about waiting for a cure is a cop out. And not even a good one. How long does it take to develop cures for something? And once it is done, how long does it take to get it to people? To begin with the odds of a new medicine being available to someone in between the time he starts being terminal and the time he actually dies are extremely low. Assuming this even happens, how long does it take to distribute medicine and get it to patients? It's not like you can find a cure and get it to people who need it tomorrow. Even assuming you are past trials and this new hypothetical medicine is ready for production, you still have to wait for production which also takes time. And you could make the case that maybe someone can get into trials for new experimental treatment but... There is a reason it is "experimental" and even then only but a minuscule amount of patients could even get a chance at this anyways. The hypothetical scenario mentioned here is irrelevant to the discussion, there is literally no point in bringing it up. It's improbable to the point where it's not a factor. You could as reasonably argue that you shouldn't get a job because there is a chance you might win the lottery (and my point isn't that people shouldn't get jobs, just that the 1/150'000.000 chance that you win the lottery is not relevant to that question and even bringing it up is preposterous).

As for the religion bit... can't speak for all religions but at least from the christian perspective it would be more or less both. Suicide on part of the person getting euthanasia and some form of murder to anyone providing it.

 

[Marmalade]

Come on, the bit about waiting for a cure is a cop out. And not even a good one. How long does it take to develop cures for something? And once it is done, how long does it take to get it to people? To begin with the odds of a new medicine being available to someone in between the time he starts being terminal and the time he actually dies are extremely low. Assuming this even happens, how long does it take to distribute medicine and get it to patients? It's not like you can find a cure and get it to people who need it tomorrow. Even assuming you are past trials and this new hypothetical medicine is ready for production, you still have to wait for production which also takes time. And you could make the case that maybe someone can get into trials for new experimental treatment but... There is a reason it is "experimental" and even then only but a minuscule amount of patients could even get a chance at this anyways. The hypothetical scenario mentioned here is irrelevant to the discussion, there is literally no point in bringing it up. It's improbable to the point where it's not a factor. You could as reasonably argue that you shouldn't get a job because there is a chance you might win the lottery (and my point isn't that people shouldn't get jobs, just that the 1/150'000.000 chance that you win the lottery is not relevant to that question and even bringing it up is preposterous).

As for the religion bit... can't speak for all religions but at least from the christian perspective it would be more or less both. Suicide on part of the person getting euthanasia and some form of murder to anyone providing it.

About the cure: You do realize there are people who'd have hope, enough so that they'd "wait" for a cure that may never come (quite possibly not before they day naturally/due to their illness). I personally wouldn't advise people waiting for that, nor would I myself wait for a cure like that, just pointing out that like said before it can be an argument for people to chose not to do it.
If hanging onto hope, no matter how small the actual chance of the thing you hoped for coming true is giving you the will to keep living, why not.
Gotta see it from both sides right?
I too, do not think it would be logical or realistic to wait for something like that unless you have proper evidence about the cure is given. I for example know a person with an illness that doesn't have a cure yet. While it is not live threatening, it really makes the life of that person a living hell due to the fact she is in a lot of pain, making her functioning really limited. There are a few experiments - she is participating, when allowed (due to the conditions they want the participating pepole to be in) too - on the illness itself. In her case, there is a possible cure she's helping create, so to speak.
In a case like that, I'd probably would want to try and wait.
If that's not the case, I wouldn't want to wait on a 'fairy tale' to put it bluntly.

Religion: I agree with your point about it could be seen both murder and suicide. Haven't thought about that one actually, good point!

 

[kkck]

About the cure: You do realize there are people who'd have hope, enough so that they'd "wait" for a cure that may never come (quite possibly not before they day naturally/due to their illness). I personally wouldn't advise people waiting for that, nor would I myself wait for a cure like that, just pointing out that like said before it can be an argument for people to chose not to do it.
If hanging onto hope, no matter how small the actual chance of the thing you hoped for coming true is giving you the will to keep living, why not.
Gotta see it from both sides right?
I too, do not think it would be logical or realistic to wait for something like that unless you have proper evidence about the cure is given. I for example know a person with an illness that doesn't have a cure yet. While it is not live threatening, it really makes the life of that person a living hell due to the fact she is in a lot of pain, making her functioning really limited. There are a few experiments - she is participating, when allowed (due to the conditions they want the participating pepole to be in) too - on the illness itself. In her case, there is a possible cure she's helping create, so to speak.
In a case like that, I'd probably would want to try and wait.
If that's not the case, I wouldn't want to wait on a 'fairy tale' to put it bluntly.

Religion: I agree with your point about it could be seen both murder and suicide. Haven't thought about that one actually, good point!

I don't take issue with that. What I take issue here is policy being made based on the idea of a hypothetical cure which has 0.0000001% chance of happening (because a religion says euthanasia is bad). People are free or not to hang on to hope as much as they want, it is also a non issue to whether euthanasia should be allowed or not.

 

[Marmalade]

I don't take issue with that. What I take issue here is policy being made based on the idea of a hypothetical cure which has 0.0000001% chance of happening (because a religion says euthanasia is bad). People are free or not to hang on to hope as much as they want, it is also a non issue to whether euthanasia should be allowed or not.

Thats true. If they want to hang onto that tiny tiny chance and chose to keep living, while they still can is their own personal decision. Do you think it should be allowed, for those who made their choice and have good arguments for it?

Something other than that: In how many places is it allowed at all? I've heard lots of discussion about it, but not so many "oh this law for euthanasia has passed".

 

[**Silver**]

i think old people should have the right to end their life without suffering... what some 80 years old has to lose? nursing home is expensive....its humiliating when you piss/shit yourself in the bed and some nurse needs to clean it....