Is assisted suicide really a gesture of human compassion?????

[Bunny De La Cruiz]

Assisted suicide is making inroads in Canada and some European countries

Assisted suicide, to put it mildly, is a controversial subject and one that continues to be fought over vociferously by both right-to-die activists and religious groups. But according to Howard Ball, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Vermont, the legalization of physician-assisted death is a gesture of human compassion. Do you agree with this ?? and why?? I personally do not agree to this 100% but, there is an empathy for pain here as well....

[warmcome]

yes. only those who are terminally ill, in pain, meds no longer effective,
can know whats right and whats wrong in these situations, IMO.

[skytaz]

I cant see what the big problem with this is if someone is very sick and does not want to be in pain for years or in a veg state it should be up to them selfs and family if they go through with it not with them religous cunts or so called good doers if it ever happpens to me i am going to take the option even if i have to kill myself i dont want my family and friends to see me suffer

[nitram]

I do agree with assisted suicide. I have often said if I reached a time where I could not take my own life because I no longer had the ability to do so, I should be able to decide on my time to go and the person who assisted me should not be held responsible for assisting me to fulfill my desire to say good by to this life.

[warmcome]

even though it's easy to die, sometimes it can get quite messy
and someone not die, but remain very ill, difficult for relations too.

[Bunny De La Cruiz]

It has been argued that permitting euthanasia could diminish respect for life!!!!. Concerns have been raised that allowing euthanasia for terminally ill individuals who request it, could result in a situation where all terminally ill individuals would feel pressurised into availing of euthanasia. There are fears that such individuals might begin to view themselves as a burden on their family, friends and society or as a strain on limited healthcare resources as mentioned above. Opponents of euthanasia also contend that permitting individuals to end their lives may lead to a situation where certain groups within society e.g. the terminally ill, severely disabled individuals or the elderly would be euthanised as a rule......

[warmcome]

It has been argued that permitting euthanasia could diminish respect for life!!!!. Concerns have been raised that allowing euthanasia for terminally ill individuals who request it, could result in a situation where all terminally ill individuals would feel pressurised into availing of euthanasia. There are fears that such individuals might begin to view themselves as a burden on their family, friends and society or as a strain on limited healthcare resources as mentioned above. Opponents of euthanasia also contend that permitting individuals to end their lives may lead to a situation where certain groups within society e.g. the terminally ill, severely disabled individuals or the elderly would be euthanised as a rule......

the 'slippery slope' argument. just fears. as i say, those in that situation know.
2 seperate doctors would also have to sign off on a decision. thats how it is in Holland.

[Anna23]

Ppl should be allowed to do as they wish however better understanding is necessary for making a good decision. If I knew then what I know now of a spiritual perspective, I would have never had put my dog down.
But as far as I'm concerned euthanasia for humans is no different than the one for animals, so why such diametral differing views?

[warmcome]

Ppl should be allowed to do as they wish however better understanding is necessary for making a good decision. If I knew then what I know now of a spiritual perspective, I would have never had put my dog down.
But as far as I'm concerned euthanasia for humans is no different than the one for animals, so why such diametral differing views?

because some people like to mind other peoples business, Anna. pets can be so close!

[experiencedguy]

It's a tricky one, to say the least.

What renders something precious in a general sense is its rarity. With over 5 billion people on the planet (not to say the damage we're doing to the earth), then it's safe to say that human life, in a general sense isn't precious. What is precious is our own experiences of those around us, so while people can be precious to us, they aren't in the large scheme of things.

On the flip side, a human has so much potential that just because someone is rendered incapacitated doesn't mean that they are a burden to society, Jason Becker and Stephen Hawking to name but two. It's safe to say that a human has more potential than any other species.

The possibility of an afterlife must be considered, but in my mind, there's no such thing. When a part of the brain dies, parts of the person dies in a consciousness sense (hence, the results of lobotomies and brain damage on personality, depending on the part of the brain affected). Therefore, there isn't a lot of reason to believe that a person lives on after death. This remains to be proven. Their constituant atoms are reused, become other things, but the consciousness, as far as I believe doesn't. This renders taking a life far more serious from a personal perspective, than if I knew there was an afterlife. In effect, you're ending someone, completely.

My morals are always fluid, and I'm always open. So far, I'm not willing for this to become legislation. The potential for abuse on many other victims affects more people than one person in pain having the option, and we will only need one Harold Shipman to show us the error of this.

In short, we could provide the option to a minority, while putting the majority at risk. The needs of the many say no.