Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
LightAngel

Are You For Or Against Euthanasia?

85 posts in this topic

7 minutes ago, Podo said:

I agree 100% to euthanasia. I see no logical reason to forbid someone from ending their own life if they wish.

But euthanasia isn't someone ending their own life. It's having someone else, typically a physician, end your life.

I'm finding it interesting that this thread seems to be having suicide, assisted dying, and euthanasia as kind of the same thing. But they aren't. Suicide is taking your own life without assistance from others. Assisted dying is being provided the means, and usually the medically safe setting, to take your own life. Euthanasia is having someone else take your life through medical means. It's one thing do decide and do that to yourself, kind of another to decide you want someone else to do that to you and someone else being willing to do that to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
52 minutes ago, rashore said:

But euthanasia isn't someone ending their own life. It's having someone else, typically a physician, end your life.

I'm finding it interesting that this thread seems to be having suicide, assisted dying, and euthanasia as kind of the same thing. But they aren't. Suicide is taking your own life without assistance from others. Assisted dying is being provided the means, and usually the medically safe setting, to take your own life. Euthanasia is having someone else take your life through medical means. It's one thing do decide and do that to yourself, kind of another to decide you want someone else to do that to you and someone else being willing to do that to you.

But it's someone choosing to end their own life. A doctor may do it, but the person still makes the choice to make it happen. I'm still in favour of it in instances where someone can't make the decision themself, such as if someone is brain-dead, or in a coma for years and years, or [insert some other context-dependent situation here].

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, LightAngel said:

why shouldn't people get help to die with dignity?

Prevention is always the best, I agree, but I'm talking about helping people die as a last option. You agree that we should help people with terminal illness, but what about for example very old people who want to die with dignity?! 

First off, you speak of a 'last option'. There is no 'last option', only a 'last choice'. There are always multiple options with nearly every scenario, even if we can't think of those other options at the time.

Second, if someone is advanced enough in age that they thereby acquire physical impairments that will ultimately lead to nearby future death, then this is essentially what we would call 'terminal illness'. Choosing to die now rather then in the near future due to suffering caused by something to which they know will kill them, is a perfectly reasonable argument one could make. However this argument is based on the knowledge and the fact that you will die in the near future, and that you will suffer greatly during the time between now till then. And most importantly this argument has to do with internal, physical circumstances, not external, environmental circumstances that could always potentially change at any moment. Dying of a terminal illness is the same as dying of a terminal injury. The physical damage has already been done, and it is irreversible. The only two options are to live through it till you die naturally, or ease the suffering through euthanasia. If external circumstances are involved, then there is absolutely no need to euthanize, because if those external circumstances were to be eliminated, then the person in question would be able to live without suffering. There is absolutely no example that you could present to me of an external circumstance that does not have the potential of being eliminated, and therefore, I find it unnecessary and premature (and yes, possibly even immoral) to euthanize anyone due to suffering caused by external circumstances. Period.

To further illustrate my point, I'd like to show you this brilliant movie clip from the movie The Mist. It's actually the ending scene so I'll wrap it in spoilers so as not to spoil the movie to anyone who hasn't seen it.

(and if you haven't seen it and don't want it spoiled for you, then don't feel obligated to watch it just to respond. I think I've more than justified my position at this point, just thought that this would perfectly illustrate my point here in a way that words alone couldn't adequately convey)
 

Spoiler

 

To give you some background info here, the movie is about a group of people trapped in a dense mist (thus the title) in which alien monsters inhabit, that kill anyone they come in contact with in this mist. This is the ending of the movie. They've been traveling through this mist for miles in a car, but now they're outta gas. They can't see anything anywhere around them due to the mist. They can't stay in the car forever. If they hope to survive, they must venture outside the car and into the mist. Yet if they venture out into the mist, they run the risk of dying a gruesome and painful death by these monsters. So instead, they give up, and decide to end their own lives, thinking it's the better way to go.

Do you see my point about ever-changing external circumstances? Your environment can always change, therefore it is completely unnecessary and premature to end your life based on this. You never know how things will change in the future. This is why euthanasia should ONLY be a viable option for those who suffer from terminal illness. Nothing else.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Do you see my point about ever-changing external circumstances?

 

 

 

I do see your point, but do you see mine? :)

When you have time then see this video:

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

 

Second, if someone is advanced enough in age that they thereby acquire physical impairments that will ultimately lead to nearby future death, then this is essentially what we would call 'terminal illness'. Choosing to die now rather then in the near future due to suffering caused by something to which they know will kill them, is a perfectly reasonable argument one could make. However this argument is based on the knowledge and the fact that you will die in the near future, and that you will suffer greatly during the time between now till then. And most importantly this argument has to do with internal, physical circumstances, not external, environmental circumstances that could always potentially change at any moment. Dying of a terminal illness is the same as dying of a terminal injury. The physical damage has already been done, and it is irreversible. The only two options are to live through it till you die naturally, or ease the suffering through euthanasia. If external circumstances are involved, then there is absolutely no need to euthanize, because if those external circumstances were to be eliminated, then the person in question would be able to live without suffering. 

 

 

I hope you understand that we do agree here, but I want to look at this topic from all sides because many things in life is not a clear yes or no. There are endless variables in that grey area.

I want people to have the freedom to choose, I think this is where we disagree.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, LightAngel said:

I do see your point, but do you see mine? :)

...

I hope you understand that we do agree here, but I want to look at this topic from all sides because many things in life is not a clear yes or no. There are endless variables in that grey area.

I want people to have the freedom to choose, I think this is where we disagree.

We don't disagree with the freedom of choice, what we disagree on is the provision of a 'humane' way out for those who wish to. Fact of the matter is, there are dozens of 'humane' quick and easy painless ways to end one's life that are easily and readily available to those who so wish to end it. I should know, as I spent many years contemplating deeply about suicide. Now I advocate strongly against it. People already have freedom of choice, so there's no need to give them another option.

You ask me to see your point of view, but I'm sad to say that I just simply don't. :hmm: I understand exactly what you're saying and I firmly disagree with it. Furthermore I have thoroughly explained and supported my position, and there has been nothing you have presented to me thus far (such as the video you provided) that isn't refuted by my own previous arguments. Therefore I find it pointless to repeat myself.

You're right, there are many things in life that is not a clear yes or no. There is a grey area. This just happens to be one of those issues that is not in that grey area, and that does have a clear yes or no answer. Rape for instance is not a matter of dispute. It does not exist in any sort of grey area, and it is a definite no. Period. The same is true with this. If you don't see that, then I'm sorry. It should be plain as day. Regardless, I wish you the best, and will not waste my time repeating the same point endlessly. Good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I find it pointless to repeat myself.

 

 

You don't need to repeat yourself.

We should just agree to disagree  ;)

We both have good intentions here, and we both want what is best for the human race. - I want to look for the best solution here, and in order to find the solution which has the least consequences, then we have to look at this from all sides. There is no perfect answer here because no matter how much I turn this around in my mind, then there will always be some price we have to pay.

I don't claim to know everything here because that would be very arrogant of me. 

Edited by LightAngel
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

The right to die: Historic euthanasia bill PASSES after marathon 26-hour debate

    Health Minister Jill Hennessy reportedly called Deputy Premier a 'c***' in text
    Labor colleague James Merlino received the message by mistake on Wednesday
    It comes as tensions flared during overnight debate on divisive euthanasia laws


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4999310/Victoria-passes-historic-euthanasia-bill-debate.html#ixzz4w1ZKwDAB


 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/10/2017 at 4:21 AM, rashore said:

But euthanasia isn't someone ending their own life. It's having someone else, typically a physician, end your life.

I'm finding it interesting that this thread seems to be having suicide, assisted dying, and euthanasia as kind of the same thing. But they aren't. Suicide is taking your own life without assistance from others. Assisted dying is being provided the means, and usually the medically safe setting, to take your own life. Euthanasia is having someone else take your life through medical means. It's one thing do decide and do that to yourself, kind of another to decide you want someone else to do that to you and someone else being willing to do that to you.

Well after a 26 hour debate (47/37 vote), Victoria, Australia looks like it will become the first state to allow euthanasia.

One term is that the person administers the drug themselves, not the doctor or anyone else. 

So doctors will essentially grant the access to the drug, but not administer it. 

I’m glad that it looks like it’s going to happen!!

1 hour ago, seeder said:

 

So stupid and Australian(lol), on the TV news; ‘politician accidentally sends text calling other politician ‘see you next Tuesday’. 

It’s not seemingly as vulgar a word as it used to be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2017 at 4:26 AM, LightAngel said:

I'm from Denmark and here it isn't allowed!

It is allowed to help animals to ease their pain and help them move on, but not humans.

I'm for euthanasia in extreme cases where it is purely sadistic to let a human suffer unnecessarily!

What about you?

 

Damn, thats a hard question. 

I recall reading about several "compasionate euthanasia" cases involving truly extreme circumstances.

For example, a US soldier in Vietnam fell into a poison-tip "man-trap" of which there was zero hope for recovery. He cried-out to his buddy to kill him so that he would not suffer the excruciating pain of the effects of the poison bamboo tips. His buddy at first hesitated, but soon drew his side-arm and shot him twice in the head.

Edited by pallidin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.