The definition of Euthanasia as given by the Oxford English Dictionary is: "the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable disease or in an irreversible coma". It comes from the Greek, literally translating as"a good death" .
Euthanasia is a controversial matter, becoming a bigger issue with high profile cases like Diane Pretty's, a woman suffering from Motor Neurone Syndrome who lost her battle to have euthanasia legalized and died of natural causes in 2002.
Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands and in the state of Oregon in the U.S.A. Recently, the government on the Isle of Man has made a much debated decision to legalize euthanasia. There is a lot of pressure mounting on other governments to follow suit, with more terminally ill patients expressing the wish to end their lives legally. The primary reason, they say, is so that they can die with dignity.
I am going to discuss this topic and strive to give the arguments of both sides. I will then come to a conclusion based on what I have learnt.
People who are against euthanasia are called "Pro-life"; this is also the view of Christians who regard euthanasia as a sin. There are other non-Christian reasons: one of the strongestarguments against euthanasia is the question ofwho can decide how advanced a terminal illness isin order for euthanasia to be acceptable.
For example: the case of American Sidney Cohen, who was diagnosed with cancer and given three months to live. He asked for euthanasia to be administered. He was suffering agonizing pain and was bed-ridden, but was refused euthanasia because it was illegal. Eight months later, he was still living, and said, "I now know that death is inevitable and since coming under hospice home care I now enjoy a full life." His fears of an agonizing death had been allayed and he was now staunchly opposed to euthanasia. The point here is that once fears are laid to rest and pain relieved, many people change their wish to have euthanasia administered. Also, it shows that doctors are not always correct in their diagnoses. Another point that the "Pro-life" lobby try to get across is thatthey believe no one dies painfully now, because of hospices and modern drugs, so euthanasia is not needed.
Other arguments include the fact that many patients feel they are a great burden on their relatives and are causing them much pain. For these reasons, they might ask for euthanasia to be administered, when they may not want to die -- they just do not want to cause their family any more suffering.
Also, someone could pressurea terminally ill person for their own personal or financial gain. For example, an elderly relative could be manipulated by someone who stood to inherit their estate. Unscrupulous doctors may want to remove elderly patients from their lists if they require a lot of care for little financial return. And so on.
On the other side of this argument are those campaigning for a change in the law which would legalize euthanasia, including The Voluntary Euthanasia Society.
One of their most publicized arguments, which was used extensively by Diane Pretty's lawyers, is that if a person was more physically able anddid not need third party assistance to administer euthanasia, they could commit suicide, which is not necessary illegal on its own. Therefore it is argued that this is discrimination againstpeople with physically deteriorating illnesses. That, they say, is in direct violationof the Human Rights Act, Article 14 which outlaws discrimination.
They feel that the fact that euthanasia is not administered to people suffering agonizing pain if they wish it is another violation of the Human Rights Act. Article 3 clearly states that it is everyone;s absolute right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. By not allowing people the choice end their life, the law condemns them to prolonged suffering and increasing loss of dignity.
One argument of the "Pro-Life" camp is that we might see mass deaths if euthanasia became lawful. But those who are campaigning to legalize euthanasia say that figures such as those from Oregon show the opposite. In Oregon, only 0.1 percent of deaths in the last five years have been as a result of euthanasia.
The "pro-life" argument regarding improvement in pain control through drugs, hospices etc. only covers those dying in pain. It does not apply to those suffering debilitating illnesses and physical collapse of their body -- for example, those suffering from Motor Neurone Syndrome. In these circumstances, the loss of independence and the breakdown of all bodily functions ensures a slow, undignified death, understandably some of these patients would welcome euthanasia.

UK court: Euthanasia case can proceed.
In a case that challenges Britain's definition of murder, a judge ruled Mondaythat a severely disabled man who wants a doctor to kill him will be granted ahearing.
It is the first euthanasia case of itskind to be allowed a hearing in a British court.
Tony Nicklinson, 57, suffered a paralyzing stroke in 2005 that left him unable to speak or move belowhis neck. The former rugby player and corporate manager requires constant care and communicates largely by blinking, although his mind has remained unaffected. In January, Nicklinson asked the High Court to declare that any doctor who gives hima lethal injection with his consent won't be charged with murder.
"I have no privacy or dignity left," Nicklinson said in a statement. "I am fed up with my life and don't want to spend the next 20 years or so like this."
The ministry of justice argued that granting Nicklinson's request would require changing the law on murder and that such changes must be made by Parliament. The government had applied to have the case dismissed.
In his ruling, Justice William Charles said Nicklinson was "now inviting the court to cross the Rubicon" and that his case had"an arguable base."
Nicklinson argued that British law hindered his right to"private and family life" — guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights — on the grounds that being able to choose how to die is a matter of personal autonomy.
"The decision to go to a hearing is quite a small step, but what's tremendously significant is what Tony Nicklinson is asking for," said Emily Jackson, a law professor at the London School of Economics."Normally, it would be for Parliament to make any change to the law on murder, so it would be a very,very big deal for the court to make a change like this."
Nicklinson's wife, Jane, says the only way to end her husband's suffering was to kill him.
"A life like this is unbearable for him," she said. "We know there are doctors out there that would do this if it is made legal."
A recent British commission headed by a former justice secretary concluded there was a strong case for allowing assisted suicide under strict criteria. The commission was set up and funded by advocates who want the current law changed. The report did not support euthanasia and recommended assisted suicide only be allowed for terminally ill people, which would exclude Nicklinson.
In 2009, the British government's top prosecutor said people who helped terminally ill relativesand friends die were unlikely to be charged if they acted out of compassion.
In Europe, only Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Switzerland allow euthanasia.
Penney Lewis, a law professor at King's College London, said the U.K. had become more receptive to allowing assisted suicide in recent years but not euthanasia.
"Granting Nicklinson a hearing does not mean euthanasia willbe allowed, but it is abig step," she said.
In 2010, Kay Gilderdale was found not guilty of the attempted murder ofher severely disabled daughter. Gilderdale admitted she had tried to kill her daughter, who had repeatedly asked to die.

i read none of the above,
but i have done research on it.
i'm all for it.

It is somewhat comforting to know it is handled
in my state of Oregon, should it ever be needed.

I believe the government needs to **** off and butt out of it, if I am sick, bed ridden and going to die I would want to be able to choose whether or not I die hopped up on morphine or given something to make me go to sleep permanently.

Legalize it. It amazes me that in many states suicide is illegal. It shouldn't be.

For people who are in severe physical pain, yes. They are in pain to the point where they would rather just be put to sleep. Seeing someone i love, in so much pain, is not nice.

I also believe you should be able to abort your teenager if he/she is a dud.

Exactly.

If someone wants to kill themself, why is there a law against it?

Is it because of God?

No, constitution clearly states this is not to be a country run on religious precepts.

Not to mention, it helps the economy if there is less people.

If the term "suicide" offends you.

Consider it a "sacrifice" if that floats your boat.

I am not supportive of the pre meditated taking of life, unless that life is being maintained artificially(by machines) in the first place

So, it's unethical/immoral to let people die...
..but it's ethical/moral to force them to live/suffer?

How's that work exactly?

for me , it works, because birth, life, pain, and death are natural to existing

and, for me, life (Even life in pain) has potential and is therefore precious


too precious to 'snuff' out with assisted suicide,,, in my opinion

if someone is too physically incapable to take their own pills, ID say they must be on some type of support and they would therefore not apply

but if people wish to die, they can try to do it themself, and if they are successful,,,,no worries for them...

it shouldnt be on another person to end an existence (otherwise functioning body)

Yes, but pain can be medicated.
Pain can be overcome.
..but what about when it cannot?
I speak not of broken hearts or broken bones either.



Admirable, however, that is YOUR belief.
Why does everyone always have to force their beliefs on everyone else? (Not aimed at you, in general.)

A guy wants to marry a guy, *shrug* so what, their choice.
A girl wants to marry a horse, *shrug* so what, her choice.
This guy wants to be a girl, again, who cares..

..but suddenly, this guy just doesn't want to "exist" anymore.
Now we have a problem? o.O



If they are not successful, they are branded.
They are forced into the "system".
Endure medications, treatments, and force fed pills.

..are they worse than you or I?
If so, why? Just because they don't hold the same values/morals as you?

God says, "Judge not less ye be judged."
Atheists say, "Don't judge me, it's my choice not to believe."

So, why/where do we draw the line of what you are and are not allowed to believe in? Who are any of us to state what is right and wrong for each and every person?



It wouldn't be "on" them.
It's the patients choice.
Doctors, they can be pretty heartless, since in their profession they have to be.. You never can predict life, let alone death.

..but if you wish to choice your own way out..

Why is that such a sin?

I had the great misfortune of developing Multiple Sclerosis about 5 years ago. Although the symptoms are quite manageable now there is no doubt in my mind that in time that they will progress to a stage that will force me to live a life that I find totally unacceptable. The day that I wake up and can not find one reason to continue I want the right to end my life in the way I lived my life. My way. That decision is only mine to make. I would really like to not have to have a homemade remedy. Don't want to be remembered with the back of my head missing.

"A guy wants to marry a guy, *shrug* so what, their choice.
A girl wants to marry a horse, *shrug* so what, her choice.
This guy wants to be a girl, again, who cares.."


I also find these things to be 'not ok'

I cant force my beliefs on anyone but in a forum, I can give an opinion when asked, and mine is that life is too precious to take for granted when we are in 'pain'

if we wish to end our lives, that is of course our decision

however, I dont wish to see it 'legalized' because to me thats validating a choice that if government truly stays out of shouldnt be validated by that same government

I also dont wish to see it more admirable and accessible and 'normal' for people to 'give up' on their lifes prematurely,,,

Marking them as "acceptable" to your own morals/beliefs is NOT a legitimate reason as to why they should be outlawed/illegal.

Think about it for a second.

When a gay couple marries, does someone else die/suffer from such?
When a "boy" turns into a "girl" does someone else die/suffer?

Granted, these situations may cause "emotional" distress, but at the same time, is this not the "pain" you speak of as well?

So, when a person chooses "death" over "life" does someone else die/suffer? This, again of course, is outside emotionally.

They are all but life style choices that you, as an individual, should have the "right" to choose to partake in, or walk away from; but ultimately, how is it anyone's right to decide or judge another person's choices?

So, yes, I understand you are "against" the idea; but because you are, I am, and perhaps six others on Mingle, there may just be a few who are for it.

Six to two odds, in retro, would mean that our "morals" outweigh theirs making them "lesser".

I mean, isn't this a similar concept in which our nation was actually founded on? Rights, liberties, freedoms.

You have the "right" to "live".
So, why is the idea of having the "right" to "die" so taboo?

I mean, mistake me if I'm wrong, but I don't even think it's illegal (anymore) to "attempt" suicide. Granted, if you survive and aren't brain dead, paralyzed, etc; you are "forced" to receive psychiatric assistance; but it still isn't illegal.

So, ultimately, which is better?

Having people leaping off of random buildings and splattering themselves all over your sidewalk ..or..

..doing it quietly, peacefully, away from the public?

I doubt your kids would be quite as traumatized, imo, since it wouldn't be "broad casted" on the news and in the media.

..and hey, another bonus, cause now you opened up a new job market.

That's like a win-win-win situation. :P

Better than...

.....____________________ , ,__
....../ `---___________----_____] - - - - - - - - ░ ▒▓▓█D
...../_==o;;;;;;;;_______.:/
.....), ---.(_(__) /
....// (..) ), ----"
...//___//
..//___//
.//___//

.."death by cop"..

Yeah, exactly

I think you should read my post again. I didnt say they should be 'illegal'

I just said it shouldnt be made 'legal'


there are many personal decisions we make in our lives that the government stays out of,,,they arent illegal,,but they arent exactly LEGAL issues to begin with

they cant decide if I brush my teeth or not, but there is no actual LAW regarding brushing my teeth

its not ILLEGAL,, but not explicitly LEGAL either,, its just personal

I do think it should be illegal for a non medical professional to administer lethal drugs though

I want to hear from someone who has made the choice to end a life. Not in theory or in ideals, but actually made a decision based on medical advice to end the life of a loved one.