I'm personally for allowing somebody the freedom to die at their own hand if they're terminally ill. I also believe that by allowing physicians to assist, it makes the process more humane, and lessens the risks that accompany a failed attempt by one's self. Any other ideas?

I would like to request, though, whether for or against, you present some form of argument for your position, and not just render a generalized statement, like, "Its wrong!". Thanks.

okay, im going to talk for a while. I was about to create one about assisted suicide, but it looks like you just made one.

I've always found it bizarre that suicide of any sort is illegal. What governmental goal is achieved by preventing such actions? I can not think of anything logical.

Perhaps it's just a little more government nanny-ing. The big headless monster knows more than the man with a brain

i am totally for it.

I typed a nice long msg but there was an error when i tried to post it. OHH, THAT MAKES ME ANGRYYYYY.

Im sry, but i guess i have to summarize it. Remember Dr. Death of michigan? he got into prison (is he still there or did he die?) because of this issue. He helped old people that had no value in their life to kill themself. The state found it wrong. they were wrong.

ill type in about alzhiemers (i never learned how to spell it) in another msg. its too long for this one. basically, it kills your brain. These peeps will not wanna live if they get it. but they wont remmebr that they wanna die. They need help to kill themself. Assisted suicide should be legal.

L. Zeved

My father comes from a bad (in health) family. his family has a history of alzhiemers, diabetes, alergies, obesity, heart disease, etc. It goes on a while. My father has most of these problems. His diabetes is killing him. Most people dont realize that it does more than just stop you from eating sugar. Most diabetics have to have their leg(s) cut off. Blood cannot reach the feet easily. they cant walk. they cant even go to the mall. if they dont have power brakes, then they will feel pain every time they hit the brakes. tehy often get tired and sweat worse than a prostitue in church(forgive the similie, it shows the relationship nicely.)

They run outta sugar and will fall down in 2 minutes, unconscience, unless sugar reaches their system FAST. but that doesnt cause the most pain in my dad. The thought of getting alzhiemers is the worse. It haunts him. To lose his brain. he wont recognize his own son, look at his wife like a stranger. He cant use the bathroom alone. He cant eat or sleep. life truly becomes worthless, meaningless.

Reagan has that probelm. he doesnt know his own wife. He doesnt remember being president. it truly is sad. People with this disease must die. Their body will live, if they have help. But their mind is completely gone. most cant even talk.

So why wont the gov. let doctors kill them? if the people record it, write it, sign it, whatever it takes, that they wanna die when they get a disease, fatal to the mind or body, let them die. Why prevent it? it turns a loving man to a angry man with hatred. It kills them. Why not let them die? They truly want it.

L. Zeved

Hmm, I guess I'm the only one so far to vote against euthanasia.

The problem is - where do you draw the line on who is to live and who is to die? For me, the line is drawn at if you're on life support, and you don't want to continue it, then you have the right to pull the plug.

However, I believe one cannot judge if one should die simply by the "quality of their life". If someone becomes a quadraplegic, should they immediately end their life?

Euthanasia also breeds disrespect for life in society. "Just look at that useless old guy. He's no good for society and just a huge burden on his family. Why doesn't he just let his doctor kill him?"

It is an individual choice. "Quality of life" is the best phrase to simplify all the ramifications which go into deciding whether to live or not. It comes down to a common ideology seen in many of our threads. Do you support an individual's freedom to make decisions or should a third party have it? I am in the camp which values civil liberties and freedoms. People have the right to make such decisions without interference from others including the government.

Having seen many people go through this process when their animals are suffering due to illness or geriatric attrition, I know people do not want loved ones to suffer when the quality of life is low and the bad days greatly outnumber the good days.

Though I'm all for individual freedom, I would argue that suicide (including euthanasia) is not just an individual choice. Suicide affects friends and family and those around you. It leaves loved ones wondering why. It is a cop-out for trying to face problems. And it leaves those still alive trying to deal with the issues as well as the death of the person who committed suicide.

Do you not think the things that lead up to suicide affect the family as well? Chronic, terminal illness? Watching your loved one slip further and further into a red blur of pain? The degradation of having someone do everything for you, even changing your silly diapers and you're in too much pain and or confusion to even thank them for it.

If sucide is done correctly it leaves none wondering why. Especially PA suicide... as well as other sucide where notes are left.

What issues? If the person is dead, his or her issues are as well.

I'd rather deal with someone's death than with someone's unwanted life. Period. It's mercy.

Even if I disagreed with all of the above, I'd still be pro choice on this matter as I expect NO ONE to adhere to my morals and ideals and I will not adhere to those of other people.

Otseng: The people we're referring to are suffering from a terminal illness and are going to die anyway. The point of physician assisted suicide is that the individual is allowed to choose to die before they suffer too much. Of course it is difficult for their family and friends to deal with. But is it any easier to watch somebody suffer for a long period of time, wither away, and die in absolute agony?

Oh how I would love to see documentation (as if you ever provide it) on how MOST diabetics have to have their legs amputated.



A person with Alzheimer's wouldn't be eligible for PAS. They don't have the presence of mind for it which would be the number one requirement. I am also not thinking it would be an option to have that in a living will.

Also, Alzheimer's can be quick, slow or somewhere inbetween. Their life isn't crap just because they don't remember what street they live on... by the time one would think their life was meaningless, you're getting near enough to the end of it for it to be a non issue. Alzheimer's patients, while slipping down the forgetful slope, still have a quality of life during the disease. A family member of mine has it, has had it since '95 and only in the past 6mo has she been "worthless". She's bed ridden and can't do anything, even hardly swallow her Ensure. Up until about 6mo ago she could still chat (although she didn't hardly know with whom she was chatting), she could smile, she could play with things and was as fine as a late stage A's patient could be. To kill someone like that would be criminal, IMO.

I think you need to check a lot of your facts on both Diabetes and Alzheimer's. Would go a lot further in a debate.

My opinion:

Euthanasia should be allowed for the terminally-ill with some restrictions.

1. It needs to be somehow verified that the person who wishes to die was fully conscious of the decision, there should be a legally binding agreement before any of this takes place.

2. Absolutely no one should make money from the procedure.

I'm afraid it would be all but impossible to prevent pharmaceutical companies from profiting from the sale of "suicide drugs", and from doctors charging for the service. I do doubt, though, that any company or individual that values their place in the market would ever try to "sell" the service. It would completely destroy any credibility that they may have.

I disagree.

If no one made a red cent from it... who would do it? It's not something I can see doctors lining up to do, there has to be some incentive. Especially since it does take valuable time and it is the opposite of what most doctors wanted to do with their lives. They need to be compensated.

There are so few doctors that perform abortions... a lot of women have to travel far to get one. I imagine even less would do mercy killing.

On the abortion front, those aren't advertised, so I agree with SF that I doubt mercy killing would be either.

Everyone is going to die anyway. Why not just allow everyone to commit suicide?

And terminal illness is very subjective. A quadraplegic can be considered terminal by some, but it doesn't necessarily mean that person can't have a full life.

Everyone suffers, there is nobody immune to suffering. So, I don't think it should be a criteria for suicide.

Now, I'm not saying don't have compassion on those who are suffering. Quite the opposite. Give them love, give them attention, give them support. But, don't give them the option of suicide.

Again, my one big argument against PA suicide is that it's a slippery slope. Might seem OK at first, but it leads down the road of the disrespect for life.

As I understand it, terminal illness does not refer to quadraplegics. It refers to a disease in which the outcome is death such as AIDS or cancer. Both AIDS and cancer patients can live a full and quality life, but there does come a point where the illness takes control, and the body deteriorates. The outcome is predetermined, and the process is painful. This is where the right to die comes in.



There are varying degrees of suffering. Not everyone suffers in the extremes that the terminally ill suffer.

Good point.

If you don't think it should be a criteria then you don't have to make a choice in this matter if you're ever terminal and have zip for quality of life.

For goodness sake though, let other people the right to make this decision themselves.

Slippery slope? I honestly don't see how. Terminal isn't subjective and the patient has to sign on the dotten line, not a family member or friend or even doctor. I also think these people would have to go through testing to be sure this is what they want and not some passing fancy as well. I don't see a slippery slope unless down the line the rules were changed. But with THIS, what we're talking about NOW, it's fairly cut and dried.

madmax, I agree. I don't see it as a slippery slope at all. In fact I think they are totally seperate ideas. On the one hand is genetic cleansing, an external imposition, and on the other is voluntary, internal responsibility for one's own existence.

A 12 guage double barrelled shotgun is just as effective and a lot cheaper.

And oh so messy... Ever cleaned up brains? I'd have rathered something expected, neat and no cleanup for the already distraught family. Finding that body with pulp in place of head is hell and as I said, cleanup is a b!tch.

The problem with euthanasia is I foresee individuals using this because they feel they are imposing a financial or emotional burden on their family. I can foresee individuals being pressured, if only by their own thoughts, into making this decision.

Same goes for other forms of suicide.

The difference is that these people will never get well, will never get better, and will never have a good quality of life. These people are already dying. So even if they do so for financial or other reasons, I think those are still valid reasons for those who choose to do so.

Terminal people are expensive. Terminal people are time consuming. Terminal people are as painful to others as they are to themselves. If they want to end it a little sooner for one, two or three of the above reasons, my blessings.

Why would financial burden not be a good enough reason?

I agree. Under ONE stipulation. If you mess up and live cannot sue anyone for your decision. I can see HUGE lawsuits from this.

Back to lurking,
Darcaine

If this is done by the physician's hand (which is the topic), how can the patient "mess it up"?

If the physician messes it up (which I don't think killing someone would be all that hard, isn't it just a drug OD?) why should the patient/client not have the right to sue? We sue when they mess other things up, do we not?

If being a financial burden is the only criteria for justifying PAS, then we're in a world of hurt. How about this, a person runs up a huge medical bill, like say $2 mill, and he's only got $1000 in the bank. Why not just tell the doctor to just kill him?

For me, the only acceptable situation is when the patient is on life support and cannot possibly survive without it. There's no need to artificially sustain a person and incur additional hospital expenses. In that case, the person would die anyways without life support.

It's not the only criteria. The other criteria is being terminally ill, and no one can make that decision except for the person who is ill.