Everyone has got free will and should be able to decide about their own life. So if someone thinks that they don't want to suffer few months of terrible pain because of recidivation of untreatable cancer / tumors etc - let give them way of ending their life with dignity and without pain.
The main problem is, the desire for suicide is usually based in circumstantial situations, and the heavy emotions, hormones, et al involved in such.
People that make it past that stage majoratively are glad they did- some, certainly, are not.
Currently there's such social stigma and theft-of-right-of-self involved that even when psychological/mental state assessment and counseling is provided, it's a facade in that same manner that the too-often required "counseling" for abortion is. Basically just an illogical, hollow guilt trip telling you you're wrong without explaining why, other than "we told you so".
Rather, it should be treated like any other medical procedure with a risk of fatality- the risk-reward should be clearly detailed, your options clarified, your status verified, et al. The specifics obviously differ, but that should be the premise for assisted suicide.
As far as self-inflicted, that's hard to validate as well: since noone could verify it was fully intentional [outside of the overflow of emotions, chemicals, hormones, circumstances currently affecting you], it's understandable that your freedom-of-choice may be compromised there under the label of possible medical condition, rather than actual choice being made.
Nevermind it's impossible to tell if it's a real desire or a cry for help with the expectation of being 'saved'. It's basically just another facet of the good Samaritan law, of people honestly trying to help..
..though usually if someone is conscious you have to get permission from them to assist under that law.. :X
That aside, that suicide is in many places considered equivalent to murder is insane, and predicated solely on [eg, Christian] beliefs that suicide is equally immoral.
If you unintentionally kill yourself by doing something phenomenally stupid or risky or by ill intent, or intentionally by signing a DNR, or so forth, you're fine..
..but you're the worst of sinners if you make a careful deliberation on the matter beforehand, or are doing it due to [medically significant] influences upon you?
Hmmmm.
so no, it's not a simple ['pro-choice' | 'pro-life'] binary matter, though like abortion, the current approach is mostly based on pure bullshit. :X
Rather not, but it's individual. Person must decide by him/herself, but at first this person must not be mentally ill, like having depression or something like that.
It'd be abused in my country. I saw a doctor killing a man for his organs before, "euthanasia" as a justification would make his job easier. I don't want euthanasia in my country.
I hadn't really thought about it before reading here, but others have put it quite well. Of free choice in terminal cases it would most likely do more good than harm.
As far as your question goes, I have been to the point that there was nothing but pain for such a long period of time that I can understand how someone would just want the pain to stop. To be honest, I don't know how much longer I could have lasted in that condition, myself!
It depends on the situation; if the animal is in a lot of pain and/or can't perform the basic functions of living, then I think its more humane to put them down than to let them suffer.
If someone wants to put down their pet because its not young anymore (though perfectly healthy), they're moving, or they just don't want a pet anymore, then I'm against it. (Usually in this situation, a good vet will ask them to surrender their pet to the clinic instead of being euthanized)
Aaaannnd before hitting submit, I just read other people's comments. Do you mean euthanasia as in "right to die"? (I mostly only hear the term associated with animals, hence my paragraph above ^)
Ok, in people: Its up to the person. Like others said, in terminal cases, I think they should have the right to end it with their integrity intact.
Do what you gotta do. I've had friends end their own lives and I think they made the wrong choice but it was their choice. Not something I really like to think about too often.
The government shouldn't involve themselves with this question. It is up to the individual, and if after long evaluation they passed, so be it. Rather have them die surrounded by loved ones with the least amount of pain than finding them all cut up in their room.
Long answer: It's a very complicated subject. Most people don't live in complete isolation -- their decision to take their own life affects those around them. In my country (USA) there is abysmal mental health care, so someone with depression, schizophrenia, etc. may not get the treatment they require, causing them to take drastic action to escape whatever pain they are going through. Public health care is also pretty terrible (or barely extant), so medical care is very costly and many elderly people feel like they are a burden on their family when they start to get old and sick. Should they die because they just don't want to be a bother to their children?
On the other hand, I don't want someone telling me what I can or cannot do with my own body or my own life. Legally, there must be lines drawn (like how there is a cut-off age for driving or drinking alcohol) but in reality it is much more nuanced. Today, if people are not allowed to end their own life, they may refuse to eat or refuse treatment instead, to bring death upon themselves "legally". That can be a long and painful, I would say unnecessarily painful, process. I've seen it happen with my own loved ones and it is just terrible for everyone involved.
I would rather have someone be empowered to end their own life in a safe, comfortable way than suffer for a long period of time before a likely death from illness
I am really happy that there is such a thing. I'm extremely sad it's forbidden here in my country though. That would save a lot of people from suffering...
I'd be interested in that as well :P
I am all for it. Especially since my Father is already battling bone cancer. I'd rather him have the choice to tell me that he is in too much pain & can no longer pursue the struggle, than him live longer in pain or in a coma waiting to die. I'd want the same for myself if I was a terminal patient or someone that had surgery complications that made me into a vegetable, my life, my body, my choice.
I'm feeling very strong about this topic and I'm wondering why it even is a topic. Why would anyone take away the right from someone else to make decisions about one's life, even if this decision may be to end it? Why would someone force someone else to suffer for an unforseeable period of time that will result in the person's death anyways? It is beyond me.
same answer as before.. ._.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hmm I would agree to it only if the said person is in under extreme pain and agony and there's absolutely no way in relieving it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm pro-choice.
Everyone has got free will and should be able to decide about their own life. So if someone thinks that they don't want to suffer few months of terrible pain because of recidivation of untreatable cancer / tumors etc - let give them way of ending their life with dignity and without pain.
Thanks for the train ^_^
Comment has been collapsed.
The main problem is, the desire for suicide is usually based in circumstantial situations, and the heavy emotions, hormones, et al involved in such.
People that make it past that stage majoratively are glad they did- some, certainly, are not.
Currently there's such social stigma and theft-of-right-of-self involved that even when psychological/mental state assessment and counseling is provided, it's a facade in that same manner that the too-often required "counseling" for abortion is. Basically just an illogical, hollow guilt trip telling you you're wrong without explaining why, other than "we told you so".
Rather, it should be treated like any other medical procedure with a risk of fatality- the risk-reward should be clearly detailed, your options clarified, your status verified, et al. The specifics obviously differ, but that should be the premise for assisted suicide.
As far as self-inflicted, that's hard to validate as well: since noone could verify it was fully intentional [outside of the overflow of emotions, chemicals, hormones, circumstances currently affecting you], it's understandable that your freedom-of-choice may be compromised there under the label of possible medical condition, rather than actual choice being made.
Nevermind it's impossible to tell if it's a real desire or a cry for help with the expectation of being 'saved'.
It's basically just another facet of the good Samaritan law, of people honestly trying to help..
..though usually if someone is conscious you have to get permission from them to assist under that law.. :X
That aside, that suicide is in many places considered equivalent to murder is insane, and predicated solely on [eg, Christian] beliefs that suicide is equally immoral.
If you unintentionally kill yourself by doing something phenomenally stupid or risky or by ill intent, or intentionally by signing a DNR, or so forth, you're fine..
..but you're the worst of sinners if you make a careful deliberation on the matter beforehand, or are doing it due to [medically significant] influences upon you?
Hmmmm.
so no, it's not a simple ['pro-choice' | 'pro-life'] binary matter, though like abortion, the current approach is mostly based on pure bullshit. :X
Comment has been collapsed.
up to the individual
Comment has been collapsed.
Rather not, but it's individual. Person must decide by him/herself, but at first this person must not be mentally ill, like having depression or something like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am kind of agreeing with what most posters about said. As long as its not a temporary depression go for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Depend, if people do not want to die in pain, it would be a good choice :/
Comment has been collapsed.
It'd be abused in my country. I saw a doctor killing a man for his organs before, "euthanasia" as a justification would make his job easier. I don't want euthanasia in my country.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pro in terminal cases only, as to avoid abuse.
Comment has been collapsed.
I hadn't really thought about it before reading here, but others have put it quite well. Of free choice in terminal cases it would most likely do more good than harm.
Comment has been collapsed.
Amazing train, thank you!
As far as your question goes, I have been to the point that there was nothing but pain for such a long period of time that I can understand how someone would just want the pain to stop. To be honest, I don't know how much longer I could have lasted in that condition, myself!
Comment has been collapsed.
Up to the individual i guess, unless of course we're dealing with a depressed or psychologically/mentally ill person, in which case up to the family.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is my question! is studying to be an rvt
It depends on the situation; if the animal is in a lot of pain and/or can't perform the basic functions of living, then I think its more humane to put them down than to let them suffer.
If someone wants to put down their pet because its not young anymore (though perfectly healthy), they're moving, or they just don't want a pet anymore, then I'm against it. (Usually in this situation, a good vet will ask them to surrender their pet to the clinic instead of being euthanized)
Aaaannnd before hitting submit, I just read other people's comments. Do you mean euthanasia as in "right to die"? (I mostly only hear the term associated with animals, hence my paragraph above ^)
Ok, in people: Its up to the person. Like others said, in terminal cases, I think they should have the right to end it with their integrity intact.
Comment has been collapsed.
*dignity.
Integrity is just too weird an association there :X
Also, since you had the question as well, here. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Do what you gotta do. I've had friends end their own lives and I think they made the wrong choice but it was their choice. Not something I really like to think about too often.
Comment has been collapsed.
The government shouldn't involve themselves with this question. It is up to the individual, and if after long evaluation they passed, so be it. Rather have them die surrounded by loved ones with the least amount of pain than finding them all cut up in their room.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it should be up to individual, in terminal cases.
Comment has been collapsed.
All for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Short answer: allow it
Long answer: It's a very complicated subject. Most people don't live in complete isolation -- their decision to take their own life affects those around them. In my country (USA) there is abysmal mental health care, so someone with depression, schizophrenia, etc. may not get the treatment they require, causing them to take drastic action to escape whatever pain they are going through. Public health care is also pretty terrible (or barely extant), so medical care is very costly and many elderly people feel like they are a burden on their family when they start to get old and sick. Should they die because they just don't want to be a bother to their children?
On the other hand, I don't want someone telling me what I can or cannot do with my own body or my own life. Legally, there must be lines drawn (like how there is a cut-off age for driving or drinking alcohol) but in reality it is much more nuanced. Today, if people are not allowed to end their own life, they may refuse to eat or refuse treatment instead, to bring death upon themselves "legally". That can be a long and painful, I would say unnecessarily painful, process. I've seen it happen with my own loved ones and it is just terrible for everyone involved.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would rather have someone be empowered to end their own life in a safe, comfortable way than suffer for a long period of time before a likely death from illness
Comment has been collapsed.
I am really happy that there is such a thing. I'm extremely sad it's forbidden here in my country though. That would save a lot of people from suffering...
I'd be interested in that as well :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm against it. Yes.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am all for it. Especially since my Father is already battling bone cancer. I'd rather him have the choice to tell me that he is in too much pain & can no longer pursue the struggle, than him live longer in pain or in a coma waiting to die. I'd want the same for myself if I was a terminal patient or someone that had surgery complications that made me into a vegetable, my life, my body, my choice.
Comment has been collapsed.
fine, your own call
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm pro-choice all the way.. the hard part is when someone's so far gone they can't decide for themselves anymore
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm feeling very strong about this topic and I'm wondering why it even is a topic. Why would anyone take away the right from someone else to make decisions about one's life, even if this decision may be to end it? Why would someone force someone else to suffer for an unforseeable period of time that will result in the person's death anyways? It is beyond me.
Comment has been collapsed.