ForumGarden

I'm all for pro choice in this matter also. Like some dear loved one or friend suffering in endless pain from an incurable illness.

If I or my nearest and dearest was suffering from an incurable illness I believe it should be our choice and not some cooked up religion that thinks different.

I can't understand why it is considered "humane" to put an animal out of it's misery, yet humans are supposed to suffer.

That you are right on. Yes. But the time is coming in Europe anyway,that Euthanasia will be permitted. One third of the EU population will be over 55 years old by 2008. And the birth rate is slowing down. http://www.europarl.eu.int

Just as I was posting yesterday. The French government has announced plans to give terminally-ill patients a legal right to "die with dignity".

Health minister Phllippe Douste-Blazy said that there was no question of allowing

active euthanasia,as is the case in the Netherlands and Belguim.

It would still remain a crime to 'take steps to kill' a patient, however limited his or her expectations or quality of life were.

But the draft law would change the code of medical ethics in France, and the regulations in the public health code to allow patients,families and doctors to swich off life-support machines when all hope is lost.

i'm for it, it is legal in Oregon. what ever happened to Kovorkian? we should have the right to be put to sleep.

Colinc wrote: We are all in agreement...definitely should be allowed.


"We" are not in agreement. I'm against it.



Colinc wrote: But should it be regulated?

Something as private and powerful...would hate to have to apply to the government for approval.

But if not how would we know there were no abuses?


Perhaps if it was "allowed", then the state should make the decision all on

its' own?

Colinc wrote: Not all for it?? Oops and apologies

But i would be interested as to why you object

a. is it religion ?


Only very vaguely.

Colinc wrote: b. is it fear of abuse...ie there must be gradations of "acceptable euthanasia"


That's more to the point. Abuse/mistakes will happen - I have other concerns,

as indicated by the question in my last "contribution".

There would have to be some kind of regulations and criteria to meet. Otherwise, some people would commit murder in the name of euthanasia.

I recently wrote a paper about euthanasia for school.

The word euthanasia comes from the Ancient Greek, and it means "good death," regardless of age, disease and anything else. If you want a good death, you want the euthanasia.

Since I am Brazilian, I have notice a few contradictory aspects here in America when I just arrived. Two of them are Euthanasia and Capital Punishment. In my opinion, it is unacceptable a country to induce someone to his death because of crimes he has committed in the past, and not allow someone who really needs it to have it. I certainly can buy the argument that dangerous ciminal should be killed indeed. However, I cannot accept the idea that euthanasia is not allowed because of morality issues. If the issue was about inducing someone to his own death, it already came down by the capital punishment. Besides, euthanasia is also a pride and fairness issue. It is not fair to this person's family to watch him suffering of pain, and have this picture as the last of from the nearness. It is also not acceptable for someone who has had a victorious life to have such a bad death, depending from machines to keep him alive.

For me, the euthanasia prohibition is nothing more than just old church's moralities, which ruled our nowadays laws. And it brings us nothing more than just contradictions and about the reason and the emotion.

What about ex husbands who don't care enought to pay child support, that have no point being on this earth, and are NO GOOD FOR ANYTHING? Oh sorry I guess I should be on the "vent thread" for that! :-5 :-5 :-5

Oh yeah I believe in it should be able to be bought in the grocery store!



If someone wants to die they should be able too!

batoradaudt:-6

Welcome. Hope you enjoy your stay in the garden.

Shalom

Ted:-6

I am inclinded to believe that euthanasia could be practiced in North America but only with the consent of the patient which must be given when the patient is of sound mind and is in fact terminally ill.

Shalom

Ted:-6

how do you judge "sound of mind" and what if "sound of mind" was signed ten, twenty or thirty years previously. Euthanasia will always be open to abuse, and I'm sorry, just because we put animals down, I'm not willing to put any family member of mine down. Do not go gentle into that good night etc

booradley:-6

Medical practitioners and psychologists do have methods of determining if one if of sound mind.

I do think your point about such a decision being made years ago is relevant. Such consent should be given within a reasonable time such as a year or less. I think this particular point is one to be debated.

Some cancers cause extreme pain that is uncontrollable by any means. A person thus suffering should have the right to ask for termination of that pain. The same goes for those suffering other terrible diseases such as AIDS or ALS etc. The doses of morphine required to deaden some of the extreme pain would in fact kill the patient and I believe that if requested by the patient should indeed given.

Shalom

Ted:-6

booradley;714470 wrote: how do you judge "sound of mind" and what if "sound of mind" was signed ten, twenty or thirty years previously. Euthanasia will always be open to abuse, and I'm sorry, just because we put animals down, I'm not willing to put any family member of mine down. Do not go gentle into that good night etc


The only accepted law I know of in the US is that is Oregon where it requires that the patient is within six months of death (as certified by two doctors) and has psychiatric assessment showing no lack of sanity. There are also constraints limiting how soon it can happen after first request.