[Bobette]

This was brought up over Thanksgiving dinner (by a nurse): After your heart stops beating, would you rather be resuscitated and spend the rest of your days on life support with little hope of change, or would you rather they pull the plug and let you pass away? What if you're in a coma?

Moreover, if you are against Euthanasia, do you believe that it should be made illegal for all people? Are you against both aggressive AND passive Euthanasia? And what about voluntary Euthanasia, as in, with consent?

If you're not against Euthanasia, under what circumstances do you believe it to be appropriate? Do you believe that non-voluntary Euthanasia could ever be appropriate? Who should choose, if not the patient themselves?

My main question and the topic of this debate is not what you would choose for yourself, but whether you believe others should have the right to choose for themselves. And if they're in no condition to and cannot choose for themselves, who should? The relatives? The state? If they have previously stated what they desired, should what they chose be considered?



***************************

I personally say that if previously stated by the patient, (with proof) their desire should be met. I don't believe that the government or relatives of the patient should have any say on whether the patient is kept alive or mercy killed unless the patient has not previously stated their desires. If no records show what the patient wants done, the family (beginning with spouse, then parents, dependents, siblings, etc, in that order), should decide. If no relatives are there to decide, then the matter can be taken into that state's hands.

I don't believe that the state should have the first say EVER about what you can do with your life and body, and I dont believe someone already in a near-vegetative state should be the one to choose, sorry. This means that you should already have it in your will what you want done, whether you be in a coma or a mangled corpse, just in case.

I'm sorry, but I'm sick of those people who say that "every life is precious" being those same people you just can't seem to find when grandpa's in a vegetative state or you desperately need help raising that baby they convinced you not to abort. And believe me, I know ten-too-many people like that.




So, staying on topic: What's your opinion? Who should choose?

[Jake]

Just kill me. I'm for euthanasia when the patient wants it. I'm also for it when the patient is a vegetable.



And no, I don't feel like typing much

[©allum]

Whatever the individual wants is law in my opinion.

So of course the patient decides what they want to happen, and if they haven't specifically said beforehand, then the family should decide (in that order you posted, Bobette).

[Bobette]

Just kill me. I'm for euthanasia when the patient wants it. I'm also for it when the patient is a vegetable.

*Revises that*

So you're saying that you're all for it if the patient has made it known beforehand that they would like to be mercy killed?


Callum: What should be done in a case where there is no family? An elder without child or spouse, for example.

[Jake]

It should be up to the patient for the most part, but when someone becomes braindead or something similar to it there is no sense in keeping their bodies alive. Ever.

[Aaron]

It should be up to the patient for the most part, but when someone becomes braindead or something similar to it there is no sense in keeping their bodies alive. Ever.

I agree. (I'm not typing much right now either .)

[Neraphym]

The government lacks the legitimate authority to stop a human from ending his or her own life. If the person is incapacitated and needs help to do this, it is necessary for the government to allow this to be facilitated. Therefore, I believe euthanasia by the consent of the subject is perfectly ok. If a human is alive, but in a vegetative state, then it is not a 'person' per se. This may sound harsh, but a person can laugh, cry, feel, understand, and act as all humans naturally do. In a vegetative state, the human can do none of these things. Therefore, unless someone has demanded to be kept alive, there is no real reason to keep someone on indefinite life support. It is a drain on society to do so. Killing that person cannot be considered wrong, because that person does not suffer or have intentions anymore. It is a human in the sense of what it IS, and not what it CAN DO. Morals are based on what the subject CAN DO, because we apply morals to non-human entities (other animals) for that very reason.

Though, to keep someone alive in a vegetative state out of your own pocket is not immoral. As long as you pay the bill, I have no problem with it.