Comments on: Your View: Should Euthanasia Be Legalized?

By: jammy927

jammy927 — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:10:24 +0000

I think it should be legalised. As long as the euthanasia of humans is illegal, it is hypocrisy to allow the euthanasia of animals. The scenarios are the same – someone or something that is in unbearable agony and suffering who wants to die but is beyond our help. As to the risks, the intentional killing of a human being, whether it is their wish or another’s, would be arduously investigated and checked, so that any deaths against the wishes of those dying would be at the very bare minimum it would be possible to be.

By: Irishrem

Irishrem — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 21:57:40 +0000

Yes, but only through legal permission to those who are terminnaly ill and/or in unbearable pain, and in the right mental state to logicaly think about what they are dpind.

By: Human?

Human? — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:25:30 +0000

as long as the person asks in person and is mentaly sound they shoud be allowed

By: Spuat

Spuat — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:02:41 +0000

I think it should be legalized, it would save many people painful lives.

By: aston

aston — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:30:19 +0000

yes… if they want or if they are in a vegetative state or if they are in pain… it would be a cleaner alternative to suicide… lots of good things nothing bad if they really want to die…

By: Brandon

Brandon — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:47:53 +0000

Absolutely. The most sacred and personal decision that we as human beings have the power to decide is and should be to end our lives. One should not have to live in torture and grief if we do not want to. It is ultimately one’s right to do what they please with their life.

By: grungefreak10

grungefreak10 — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 01:51:07 +0000

What can I say? This issue is very complicated. On one hand, the opponents make a very convincing case when they point out the devaluation of human life and the alippery slope argument. Hell, in this case, I would go so far as to say that Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply; Nazi *****ogies really are relevant, and don’t automatically kill the argument.

I am happy to know that my great aunt despite her advancing senility, was kept in as much comfort as possible until she had her sudden heart attack at the nursing home. I have told myself that I would do everything I could to ease the natural deterioration until their natural death.

Opponents of Euthanasia make an all too convincing case against the practice. Yet, on the other hand, in the highly likely event that I contracted an illness that made for a slow, painful and debilitating death (I project it happening in no less than four and a half years) I could just as easily see myself throwing all those rules out the window. If I can’t have a physician give me the triple-dose of morphine that ended Freud’s life, I would just as easily put a bullet in my tumor ridden brain. I don’t think the physician assisted suicide is legal in New York, and had I lived in Washington last November, I would have, with a heavy heart voted against the measure to legalize euthanasia, yet I would have more than a few qualms either way.

Does that sound contradictory? Yes it is. But philosophy, the human condition and indeed life/death are just that complicated.

By: Brogan

Brogan — Tue, 19 May 2009 13:00:57 +0000

Argh, this is a difficult one.

Well, we put down animals if they’re suffering because it’s humane, so why not do this with humans?
But then, you just know, there will be some people who will totally abuse it to murder people.

I don’t think there is a correct answer for this really..

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:26:18 +0000

216. Lemons : Yeah, but how do we judge “reasonable quality of life”? I refer you to the following list for a rather verbose summary of what I’m trying to get at -

http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-moral-dilemmas

Comments 188/189 – I know it’s crossthreading, but I don’t wanna C+P the whole thing and jam up this board – outline what I mean.

Who’s to say that the day after I kill myself because I’ve been diagnosed with MS – completely hypothetical here – that the brilliant doctors working oh so hard in research facilities around the world, won’t miraculously find a complete cure?

That’s all I’m saying. It’s not a matter of what people can and can’t do with their body. Because where does that end? Am I allowed to cause a person *this* much discomfort in the process, seeing as the benefits will be huge for me? Yes? How about **this** much? Yes? This much? Where does it end? We have to draw the line. We have, why change it?

By: Lemons

Lemons — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:32:47 +0000

Im not convinced the “it can be abused too easily” argument quite cuts it. If i was terminaly ill and in great pain i would not want to live with that suffering, nor would i want to see a loved one in that situation either. I understand how it could be abused and i dont pretent to have a solution to that, but i dont think that outweighs peoples right to do with their life as they wish. Especialy if they have no reasonable quality of life left.