- Zach
It makes perfect sense to give the terminally ill the right to die, im not sure how i feel about suicide, but i dont think its wrong at all to let someone who is in pain and bedridden to end their life sooner than later.
-
No one likes being told what to do, therefore, no person should be denied the fundamental right to die if they are terminally ill. Walk a mile in someone elses shoes. Would you want to live or die? Do you measure life by the time you spend on earth? Or the quality of a life in general? Human beings live life because its instinct, what else is there? When life gets to the point at which there is a limited amount of time left and there is no hope, then life, which is already limited, should not have to be prolonged. Life is a fundamental right, we protect it to the best of our ability. If some person is dying and in enough pain to want to die then they have the fundamental right to.
Dying is not a “right.” There is no miracle drug that will give ‘us’ eternal life on Earth, everyone will die at some point, it’s just a matter of when, and in this case, why? The debatable question is, “Are the terminally ill being murdered if their life support is taken away from them?” The decision to “pull the plug” should be relied on the condition of the “ill” and how “ill” they truly are. If the “ill” are in a vegetative state and could donate organs to save someone else, then they should, even if it means “killing” the “ill.”
What if there was a little boy, 6 years old, he hasn’t even begun to live his life. Since he was two, he has been in and out of children’s hospitals, doctors operating on him, scratching their heads in confusion on what could possibly make this boy so sick. On the boy’s last trip to the hospital, one of his many doctors tells him he has only three days left to live…unless…he gets a heart transplant. With the boy’s rare blood type, it will be one difficult task to find an appropriate donor. Meanwhile, a man, eighty-seven years of age, is in the same hospital as the boy. The man is in a coma and has been for several weeks. His family is too attached to let go of the man and wants to keep him “living” as long as possible. It turns out that the “ill” man and the desperate boy have the exact same rare blood type. This man’s heart could save the boy’s life, and allow the boy to actually live his life. The man has been living a long and happy life until now. The boy is “living” what appears to be a short and miserable life. The man will probably never waken from this coma but the family doesn’t want to give up. The boy will die in less than 72 hours. Wouldn’t you say the boy should have a chance at life? The man’s life was great. I believe the coma is God’s way of saying it’s time for him to go. In other words, by killing this old man who lived his wonderful life, you are saving this young child who hasn’t had a life yet.
Brittany: In response to Keri: In this situation mentioned about a dying 6 year old in need of a heart transplant and an old man who has already lived a full life raises an excellent point, one that I had not previously thought of. People who are opposed to the right of a terminally ill patient to die are likely not realizing that a person's choice to end their life could in fact save another's life, someone who has not yet had a chance to live. In the scenario mentioned by Keri, the old man will inevitably die fairly soon anyway... but is simply being kept alive on life support in order to prolong his time alive. By making him wait to die, essentially, two people's lives are ending very soon. Why not preserve one, and cut the amount of pain and suffering in half for all involved?
Accidents happen.
Are you saying that if you..lets say..start drowning at the city pool.. that you do not want to be rescued? You taking in so much water would enable some one to perform CPR on you. If someone saved your life by doing this I don't think you will "result in a low quality life" afterwards. What are you going to do? Sue them for saving you? Are you going to go to court and say [in my "living will" I specifically said not to give me CPR therefore arrest this person, I should be dead right now.] (To me this just doesn't make since)
Simply Stated...Miracles Happen
there's still a chance you can survive no matter how long you've been hooked up to the machine
but also..
-you are taking up a hospital bed that may be needed to save someone elses life
and
-you are not "living" if machines are keeping you alive..your just..there
If I was in a vegetative state in the hospital...I would understand if they "pulled the plug." If someone else needed my organs to keep them alive and I was not using them for anything but to lay in bed unconscience I would want to give them up. There are people out there that have a greater chance of survival if they just had some sort of a transplant than those who are in a vegetative state, therefore saving the ones who CAN be saved...just makes since.
In cases like you have just mentioned, I agree that there should have been the option of "terminating his life." The pain, the suffering, and the torture that he and your family had to go through I'm sure were unbearable.
However, if you make a statement such as "If in enough pain, killing should be an option," then how is it different from suicide?
...
|
I'm sorry but you are sadly mistaken. First of all it is none of anyones business but however is making the decision. Secondly saying that life is a terminal disease is the wrong way to look at things and I feel horribly sorry for anyone who feels this way. What would compell anyone to keep someone alive when their death is imminent and the only thing life has in store for them is pain and agony? I would not kill myself personally, but who is to make that decision for someone else? You are wrong.
No one likes being told what to do, therefore, no person should be denied the fundamental right to die if they are terminally ill. Walk a mile in someone elses shoes. Would you want to live or die? Do you measure life by the time you spend on earth? Or the quality of a life in general?
Human beings live life because its instinct, what else is there? When life gets to the point at which there is a limited amount of time left and there is no hope, then life, which is already limited, should not have to be prolonged.
This should be limited to people with terminal illnesses, there can be no hope of living past the illness. I do not believe in suicide and there should be a big line drawn if a law were passed to give people this right. Some argue that life is a terminal illness, that we are all constantly getting closer to death. This is just someone wanting to object to death because of their own death complex, it makes no sense. Even if it did make sense, that should give the people that believe it more reason say yes to the right to die. I do not believe in suicide, which is what I consider this to be. So I will live life until God removes my soul from this vessel, however, I do not believe in trying to make this decision for someone else.
Life is a fundamental right, we protect it to the best of our ability. If some person is dying and in enough pain to want to die then they have the fundamental right to.
Rachel (Hassenplug)
Grandma wants to die. Yes, you should respond by "caring for her and lovinging her in the best way that you know," but what about what Grandma wants. This is not 'your' life, it's Grandma's. SHE should be the one entitled to her life. If Grandma is terminally ill and believes it is now her time to go it should not be considered "physician assisted suicide" if she has a request to die.
Furthermore, suicide technically can not be "assisted."
definitions of suicide:
[noun] 1. the intentional taking of one's own life.
2. a person who intentionally takes his or her own life.
(notice the "OWN LIFE" part)
Erica (Hassenplug)
Kristin
|
|
Dan(Hassenplug)
Dan(Hassenplug)
My earlier post was based on studies from sociology. Now that I have found the actual source to qualify my position that, yes, physician assisted suicide should be enacted in certain situations, here is a post of guidelines from the Netherlands in the Rotterdam court in 1981 copied directly from InternationalTaskForce.org – Euthanasia in the Netherlands:
1. The patient must be experiencing unbearable pain.
2. The patient must be conscious.
3. The death request must be voluntary.
4. The patient must have been given alternatives to euthanasia and time to consider these alternatives.
5. There must be no other reasonable solutions to the problem.
6. The patient’s death cannot inflict unnecessary suffering on others.
7. There must be more than one person involved in the euthanasia decision.
8. Only a doctor can euthanize a patient.
9. Great care must be taken in actually making the death decision.
|
Rebecca: Rather than supporting their argument with statistics and other useful information, the American Life League destroys their credibility by stating "This is ludicrous and inhumane" to those in favor of the right to die. Insulting an argument based on your beliefs does nothing but change your image from a credible organization to a ranting critic. Furthermore, they do nothing to expand on their point that "The proper response to terminal illness is to alleviate pain, provide comfort and share one’s self in every way possible so that the dying person is never isolated". Had the American Life League explained their reasons and stayed away from outbursts, this would have been a very good argument.
Kristie mitigate pain? That is why there are living wills.
Jenna (Hassenplug)
Kristin
You’re exactly right; the American Life League definitely damages its ethos by making blatant statements like “This is ludicrous and inhumane.” Without effective evidence, as you stated, like statistics, this argument is left empty; it fails to actually argue its point. Instead, the American Life League chooses to impose its beliefs rather than prove them.
|
|
Laws Against Suicide Are Based on Religious Taboos
Brittany: I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that religion should not play a part in society concerning those who do not share the same beliefs. It is perfectly acceptable for a religious conservative to choose to continue a life of illness, regardless of the amount of pain and suffering they must endure, in order to fulfill their duties to their God. However, we all need to realize that not all of us share the same beliefs, and the ideas of one religious group should not have the right to let their beliefs dictate what others do. Choosing to end one's own life because they are terminally ill, in pain, and unable to enjoy the life they are living, is the person's choice, and theirs alone; they are not harming anyone else by choosing to die. Critics of this may argue that they are causing emotional suffering for their loved ones when they choose to end their own life, but watching a loved one live a life of pain and suffering is often equally, if not more painful, than watching them pass away in peace. The feelings of people with both opinions as to which of these scenarios is worse should be equally considered.
Jenna (Hassenplug)
|
Kristin (Hassenplug)
|
%5B1%5D
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.