by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on July 14th, 2010

Poll

Help answer this question below.

Do you agree with euthanasia for the terminally ill? Why?

Personally I think we treat our animals better than our loved ones.

Yes - 93.61% (205 votes) 93.61%

No - 6.39% (14 votes) 6.39%

Embed

Like
Report

Share:: Facebook; Twitter; Other

Answers. 90 helpful answers below.

by Fruitpunchsamurai on July 14th, 2010

Asker's Pick

Selected by the asker, DA BEN DAN yanggui zi. (What's this?)

Asker's Pick

On Answerbag, the member who originally submits a question can identify the answers that he or she finds most valuable. "Asker's Pick" answers show you which answers best addressed the question on the original submitter's mind.
I think the question of whether a person has a right to control their own life, I think without question their life is theirs to control. However when it comes to people who intentionally deprives a human being of his life, or provides the means for suicide, or praises death, or incites one to commit suicide, saying, "Of what use to you is this evil, difficult life? Death is better for you than life," thus having his mind set on the other's death and with the idea that he should die, praises death in various ways or incites him to commit suicide, I think it's akin to murder and speaks to the selfishness of that person.

Rather than giving the person comfort to the person that suffers by caring for them until they die, they take the life of that person because they don't want to deal with their own personal inconvenience. This includes when they don't want to see their depressed and exhausted relative suffer. They should try and bring them out of the depression rather than say, okay go die. I make that distinction also with animals. The majority of animals don't want to die and putting them down is unilaterally decided by the humans who don't want to deal with the inconvenience of giving their pet comfort until they die of natural causes. Assisted suicide is often a selfish endeavor on the part of the people who are not dying. Instead of killing them I think they should receive mental health care and better pain management.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by trailslayer on July 14th, 2010

Asker's Pick

Selected by the asker, DA BEN DAN yanggui zi. (What's this?)

Asker's Pick

On Answerbag, the member who originally submits a question can identify the answers that he or she finds most valuable. "Asker's Pick" answers show you which answers best addressed the question on the original submitter's mind.
I fully support ones choice to end their own lives, regardless of the reason or circumstance if they so choose to die.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by RosieGHM Jetpacker on July 15th, 2010

Asker's Pick

Selected by the asker, DA BEN DAN yanggui zi. (What's this?)

Asker's Pick

On Answerbag, the member who originally submits a question can identify the answers that he or she finds most valuable. "Asker's Pick" answers show you which answers best addressed the question on the original submitter's mind.
I do. If I am terminally ill and in agony I want to move on and not hang on. I extend that same option to others who feel as I do! Only the person suffering the pain should make the call. It is arrogantly presumptuous of outsiders to determine how one dies. Everyone is an outsider except the person in pain...everyone. :)
Comments
- and as Sue Rodrigues said: "whose life is it anyway?"...she was a BC woman who was dying of MS and knew that she would eventually choke to death, or suffocate.
  
  Report
  
  by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on July 15th, 2010
- Exactly. Jim's brother-in-law had bone cancer (after he started off with throat cancer, then lung cancer which eventually metastasized into bone cancer) and was in such agony that no amount of morphine or anything else helped. He shot himself in the head one night to end the pain. He would not have done that if he had had the option of slipping away peacefully with some assistance. He was at the end of his rope and he did the only thing available to him. :(
  
  Report
  
  by RosieGHM Jetpacker on July 15th, 2010
- Report
  
  by RosieGHM Jetpacker on July 15th, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
3 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Retired From The Internet on November 8th, 2010
voted: Yes
If you can't choose to end your life, then what does that say? It says your body is not your property. I beleive a person's body is their property, simple as that.
Comments
- Good answer.
  
  Report
  
  by Mark on November 10th, 2010
- Indeed, it's hard to understand how they even found someone to argue the "no" side of this debate.
  
  Report
  
  by HasntBeen on November 10th, 2010
- You'll notice that the American Life League had nothing but hyperbole and personal opinion to back up their argument.
  
  Report
  
  by Rufus_T_Firefly on November 15th, 2010
- Each human should have the right to live as they wish and die when they choose, including getting whatever assistance they desire, whether terminally ill or the picture of health.
  
  Report
  
  by Mark on November 15th, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
4 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Marky Mark on November 9th, 2010
voted: Yes
It's better than the pain and indignity of being kept alive artificially. Time to go is time to go.
Comments
- There's a difference between physician assisted suicide and putting a stop to 'heroic measures' to keep a suffering person alive.
  
  Report
  
  by LarryH54 on November 10th, 2010
- Yes, there's a difference, but it's not relevant to the question. Without a doubt, an individual must have a right to choose whether or not to continue living. Without that right, all other notions of rights or responsibilities devolve to nonsense: if you can't even choose whether to live or not, you can't really choose anything.
  
  The child's indignant "I didn't ask to be born!" is, ironically, right on point: nobody is responsible for anything if they can't choose whether or not to live.
  
  Report
  
  by HasntBeen on November 10th, 2010
- Perhaps the question itself is a false one. If no one has the right to choose to kill, why would they have the right to choose to die? Perhaps death is simply something that happens, over which we have no control, and no 'right' to control?
  
  Report
  
  by LarryH54 on November 10th, 2010
- I don't think it's false. What we're talking about is whether the *state* has the right to deny someone the choice. I think the reason that 90% of the respondents to this poll are saying 'no' is that people are instinctively reacting in horror to the idea that the state has that right. That's what it means to make assisted suicide illegal: the state is trying to take away the individual's choice about whether or not to keep living. It's hard to imagine a more intrusive form of government interference in personal life.
  
  Report
  
  by HasntBeen on November 11th, 2010
- I think this one comes down to the principle of "Self-ownership". It is a basic human right in a civilized society upon which other freedoms and responsibilities are based. We have exclusive ownership of ourselves and ONLY ourselves. (This is why I find abortion distasteful - because I see the fetus as a separate human being...but thats just me.. and I digress.)
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership
  
  Report
  
  by Marky Mark on November 11th, 2010
- Yes, that idea is wired-in to our entire worldview in the West: a person is a domain of responsibility and freedom, and the state is granted limited rights to interfere only to protect others. In the case of limiting suicide, that's a tough case to make.
  
  Report
  
  by HasntBeen on November 11th, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
6 comments | Post one | Permalink
by The Chief on December 17th, 2009
voted: Yes
I answered YES, but there are caveats to consider here.

Ultimately, there IS NO RIGHT TO DIE. Nor is there a right to live.

You are born. You live for a while. And you die.

That's not a "right". It's simply a universal fact for those who are born.

The question could be better worded in one of several ways, but ultimately what you are asking is " Do those who believe themselves to be terminally ill have the right to assisted suicide?"

What is being considered here ISN'T simply a person's choice to take their own life (suicide), but whether they can claim a legal right to have someone ELSE either take their life for them or arrange for them to do it themselves.

Assisted suicide is a paradigm shift. It's not ALLOWING a person to die a natural death by withholding treatment. It's not allowing people to die a dignified death while being treated for pain. It's deliberately taking the life of another person, either at their own hand directly, or indirectly by deliberately giving them the means.

This cr*p that "The decision to end one's own life is a fundamental human right" is just that: CR*P. Because they aren't talking about INDIVIDUAL rights.

Certainly people can do as they wish with their own bodies, unless stopped by some outside activity. But the concept of "rights" is predicated upon the human concepts of "right and wrong".

Let me put it to you this way:

If you wanted to blow your own brains out by fellating a loaded pistol, more power to you.

But society looks upon such an action as an indication that there is something wrong with the person who wants to do that because it's not NORMAL to want to do this. Therefore we want to prevent it and will do things like hospitalize such an individual.

But is it a CRIME to kill yourself? If it is, then the ultimate penalty is paid at the moment of death. But there are no laws any longer which criminalize suicide in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_views_of_suicide#United_States

However, this does not mean there are not consequences for those left behind. Including legal consequences (think insurance, for example).

Assisted suicide, however, requires someone else to take an active role in the deliberate ending of another person's life.

One's legal rights END where another's legal rights BEGIN.

This is because the concept of "rights" has to do with INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

This is why I said earlier that if you wanted to suck the lead out of a pistol and splatter your own brains over a field somewhere, more power to you.

But when you want someone ELSE to do this in some form, I have to say NO. This is NOT a "fundamental, individual human right".
Comments
- I recently lost my father to lung cancer, & yes I strongly agree that terminally ill people should have the right to die, For example when my grandfather died he had cancer weighed about six stone, yellow & drowned and choked to death on his own fluids,
  he was in terrible distress.
  
  A simple solution I feel is to have a doctor come to the house and inject a chemical to end there lives, with consent of patient of course, its appalling to prolong unnessasary suffering.
  
  I have a pet cat which I love to bits, but I know one day it may become terminally ill & when that awfull time comes the poor animal gets very ill, the right thing can be done, the pain can be taken away. and it doesn't have to suffer any more, The vets can help the animals why the hell do humans have to scream there last breath?
  
  Report
  
  by lelliott76 on June 12th, 2010
- It isn't easy, whether you allow one to die by natural means or whether you assist them.
  
  My father dies of cancer as well. He was on hospice care living with one of my brothers in his final years, and I can't really say he suffered unduely. We all suffered because of his declining health, of course. But personally, we all would have suffered more to have made a decision to end his life ourselves.
  
  The pain is still there...only from different sources.
  
  Perhaps for some there would be an ease to their own suffering knowing that they helped end the suffering of another loved one.
  
  However, there will still be those who will suffer the more so knowing that they essentially took the life of another human being, especially a loved one.
  
  Some can rationalize one way...others can rationalize the other way.
  
  Report
  
  by The Chief on June 15th, 2010
- Um... So why is attempted suicide still punishable by death in California?
  
  Perhaps it's not enforced, but it's definitely still in the books.
  
  Report
  
  by Siyanor on November 8th, 2010
- If you would, please cite the California criminal code concerning this. I could find no record of such in my searches, past or present.
  
  One source I ran across said that, as of 1963, only 6 states still had laws on the books about attempted suicide: N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Navada, and Oklahoma.
  
  http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2501/is-suicide-against-the-law
  
  Another source says:
  
  "Suicide is taking one's own life. Suicide and attempted suicide no longer are crimes in California. However, it is a felony for someone deliberately to aid, advise, or encourage another to commit suicide."
  
  http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/ca/law/c13.html#cac130500
  
  :):)
  
  Report
  
  by The Chief on November 8th, 2010
- I have no idea when that change took place, then.
  
  Report
  
  by Siyanor on November 8th, 2010
- OK.
  
  :):)
  
  Report
  
  by The Chief on November 8th, 2010
- I disagree Chief. We have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
  
  America was founded in steps. First the Declaration which declares our rights, then The Constitution which sets forth how our government shall be run, and finally The Bill of Rights, which protects our rights. Note that the Bill of Rights doesn't grant us anything, it ALWAYS says government shall not, it never states the public may.
  
  So we do have the right to life, and as with any right we have the ability to exercise it or not, as we see fit. And to that end we should have competent trained assistance in making that choice.
  
  Report
  
  by thundermount on November 8th, 2010
- thunder, you do realize that the Declaration of Independence has no force of law whatsoever?
  
  Report
  
  by Siyanor on November 9th, 2010
- Don't get me wrong, thundermount. I am in full support of our legal rights, including those in the Declaration of Independence and those enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
  
  However, those "rights", despite what people may think, exist ONLY in the realm of human conception. They are not delineated anywhere in nature.
  
  Furthermore, those rights we all enjoy are IVIDUAL rights. My argument extended beyond that into what the meat of the topic really is concerning the subject of suicide: ASSISTED suicide.
  
  When another person takes an active role in bringing about the death of another human being, he has crossed the line. Call it whatever you wish, but the man who "pulls the trigger" (or whatever defining action appropriate) or deliberately provides the means for another person to kill themselves is NOT committing suicide...he's actively killing or bringing about the death of another human being.
  
  If a person wishes to commit suicide...then so be it. But those who deliberately assist them aren't guilty of suicide... they're guilty of killing another human being.
  
  And, should we ever actually go about legalizing "assisted suicide", in my opinion no doctor or any other person who has ever taken the Hypocratic Oath has ANY business performing "assisted suicides".
  
  Either their word means something when they take that oath, or they have no honor.
  
  http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=20909
  
  If we're going to play word games like that, I can think of a few people I could kill with a coat hanger, or perhaps a pair of surgical scissors to the base of the brain, and call it "retroactive abortion". Because we all know abortion is legal in this country.
  
  :):)
  
  Report
  
  by The Chief on November 9th, 2010
- Well, in my mind, it would be the same people who kill (ahem... have the task of killing, since they don't actually do it) people on death row that would have the task of euthanasia.
  
  BTW, I'm pretty sure the only reason, or if not the only reason, a major reason, the US has such a stigma against suicide is Locke's Second Treatise of Government, which states that humans do not have the right to harm or destroy themselves because they are the property of God.
  
  Report
  
  by Siyanor on November 10th, 2010
- The big difference between death row and assisted suicide is that executions are state sanctioned killings to remove an individual who has, through due process, been determined to be a threat to society and who is beyond rehabilitation. The individuals on death row are not there because they want to kill themselves: they are there because they have been convicted of some grevious capital crime.
  
  Those who wish to kill themselves via assisted suicide only seek to escape whatever physical or psychological pain they are in because they have no hope for a productive, pain free life any more. (Simplified, I know, but essentially the main argument for assisted suicide.)
  
  Executioners, in my opinion, shouldn't do assisted suicides either: the mindsets are too different.
  
  I guess we'll see over the next few decades.
  
  Report
  
  by The Chief on November 10th, 2010
- Right, but doctors generally don't know how to do it. At least, I don't think they do; I'm not a doctor.
  
  Executioners do know how to kill, and do know how to make people comfortable (since that is actually part of their job, at least in the US).
  
  Report
  
  by Siyanor on November 10th, 2010
- Hmmmm...
  
  I think doctors DO know how to kill, and kill with comfort. It would be knowledge that is an inherent part of their training, in my opinion. In order to understand how the human body works, with all it's organs and such, they would naturally come into contact with what makes it NOT work.
  
  They know the effects of various drugs on the human body, for example, including dosages required to cause both benificial AND adverse effects. It's a balance between knowing what to use, what NOT to use, and how much over any given time.
  
  :):)
  
  Report
  
  by The Chief on November 11th, 2010
- Oh, that's true. But then it comes to our Hippocratic Oath. Executioners don't take it.
  
  Somewhere like India, doctors would be best suited to it.
  
  Report
  
  by Siyanor on November 11th, 2010
- I see no conflict between the modern oath and assisted suicide.
  
  "But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty."
  
  Seems to me that they set out rules regarding how and why to take a life.
  
  "Above all, I must not play at God."
  
  The key word is I. If a patient asks for death the doctor is not playing at god, it's the patient doing so.
  
  Report
  
  by thundermount on November 11th, 2010
- That is A modern version, not THE modern version.
  
  It's a ridiculously religious version, actually. No one could ever expect me to take that particular oath, even if I wanted to be a doctor.
  
  Report
  
  by Siyanor on November 11th, 2010
- I agree Siy, but it was his example, and it still doesn't prevent assisted suicide.
  
  Report
  
  by thundermount on November 11th, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
17 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Isaac on November 8th, 2010
voted: Yes
I believe people should have the right to do what they want unless it infringes on somebody else's rights. Them wilfully dying does not infringe on your rights, therefore Yes.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by naughtywife2 on November 8th, 2010
voted: Yes
As a hospice nurse I see the end of life and believe me we would like to see people have the choice to make their own choice with dignity and grace, not out of it and so drugged up they are not aware. It is painful for families and the patient. I took an oath to preserve life when it can be but leaving souls in broken bodies and in comatose states for years is just cruel.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by NatztheGreat on May 20th, 2010
voted: Yes
If they are going to die anyway and it would end their suffering, why should they not be allowed to die? I'm not talking get someone to stab them in the heart, just unplugging them from whatever's keeping them alive. If they have no quality of life, what's the point in them living through the pain?
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Ron C on December 14th, 2009
voted: Yes
All I want is to die (when my time comes) with dignity. I do not want some legislature telling me that I have to be tied to a bed and a burden to my family.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by sweetielowe on December 13th, 2009
voted: Yes
yes terminally ill people ARE going to die. I believe they have the right to choose how.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Ron C on December 14th, 2009
voted: Yes
I find the American Life League's answer totally unsatisfying. They seem to be stepping around and trying to rephrase the issue. The fact is that anyone has the right to end their life at anytime. I agree that the only prohibition is religious in nature and therefore has no right to exist in our legal code.
Death should be looked at like any other medical procedure. Operations would be painful with anesthetic, so is death. If the anethstetic reduces the pain of death or if it speeds it up, it is a matter between the doctor, patient, and the patients church. Not the government.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by adamjohn on May 20th, 2010
voted: Yes
In the UK, the terminally ill have the right to die as long as (i) they select a person to terminate their life and (ii) the person does not benefit from the death. Assisted Suicide is still illegal in the UK but the Director of Public Prosecutions has promised not to prosecute if these two conditions and five others are met. The police will still be involved.
Comments
- Why does the person have to be terminally ill? It's their life. If they want to die, they should be allowed to end it all, for any or no reason.
  
  Report
  
  by Devin on November 10th, 2010
- Indeed they do have that right in the UK, but a terminally ill person may need assistance to die.
  
  Report
  
  by adamjohn on November 10th, 2010
- That is very good. However, the non-terminally ill should have the right to assistance as well.
  
  Report
  
  by Devin on November 10th, 2010
- They don't need it. Why would anybody need help in taking an overdose if they were not seriously incapacitated.
  
  Report
  
  by adamjohn on November 12th, 2010
- They may prefer a different method to ensure that they job gets done once and for all since some attempts are unsuccessful. Or they may just want support and assistance. It's their life and their choice regardless of the method they prefer.
  
  Report
  
  by Devin on November 16th, 2010
- You may be on to something here. They might want unbiased advice.
  
  Report
  
  by adamjohn on November 17th, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
6 comments | Post one | Permalink
by thebabbster on December 28th, 2009
voted: Yes
I believe that if people have the express wish to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering by using the "early out" option, then they have that right. I think to prolong someone's life, as in the case of Terry Schiavo, when there is absolutely no hope of recovery of any kind, is barbaric and savage.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Mark on November 9th, 2010
voted: Yes
Everyone has the right to die, sick or healthy.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Keysha on November 9th, 2010
voted: Yes
I say, not only do the terminally ill have a right to die, but that anyone and everyone should have that right. For those not competent to make the decision, there should be a set of conditions that must be met in order for one to do so. Those conditions include questioning if they have any quality of life, if they have a decent hope of recovery (greater than 1/3 chance), if the one making the decision does not benefit in any way (either by gaining something or by losing something), the person had to have signed an agreement whilst in their right mind, allowing this to happen if they were rendered incompetent, and so on.

Chief says that we all have the right to die. That there are no laws against suicide in the US. But there are difficulties, nonetheless. Try buying a gun if you've ever attempted. You cannot. Try OD'ing. You end up in the hospital with a stomach pump and such. Attempt it and you are not jailed, but you ARE institutionalized. Which is better? It's still a prison.

If we have the RIGHT to die, even at our own hand, in the USA, then why make it almost impossible to do so? If we want to, that badly, then we should have the RIGHT to end our lives, whether at our own hand, or that of a neutral party. And if we have the right, at our own hand, then we should have the right to say not to bring us back.

If we fail, we should be able to walk the streets again. Not be cooped up in a room, with therapists telling us how wrong we are, drugs shoved on us to make us virtually human vegetables, and society calling us 'sick'.

We don't have the right to do anything but endure. Sit down, shut up, and do as you are told. Your body is only yours as long as you don't abuse it.
Comments
- Great answer! I have had friends and relatives who were just suspected of being suicidal taken by force to a hospital and locked up against their will - that's no different than being in jail.
  
  Just as women can legally be helped to terminate pregnancies, which does end a life, anyone should be able to get legal assistance to terminate their own life, should they choose to - for whatever reason. Live how you want, die when you want.
  
  Report
  
  by Mark on November 10th, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Temple Fire on November 8th, 2010
voted: Yes
with out a doubt it is there life is should be there decision, I think it is just stupid to make suicide illegal also if they wanna die let them its less of a strain on society
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by moonkicker on March 10th, 2011
In Oregon, the assisted suicide act has been law for several years. There has not been a huge increase in people dying, contrary to the nay-sayers. All applicants must prove that they have less than six months to live, and are not despondent or depressed. This must be independently verified by more than one doctor.

I voted for this several times. Many of the people who apply for it, simply want the option. Most of them die, with the prescription on the shelf, unused. It gives peace of mind.
Comments
- They need to extend that to everyone.
  
  Report
  
  by Want To Sleep With A Miner on March 10th, 2011
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by OldCW wears The COAT of the Cosmos on March 10th, 2011
Anyone who has had pets knows the answer: Yes. Terminating the life of a human or animal that is near the end of its life with only suffering and pain to look forward to is a humane thing to do.

With people, at least they can tell you. With pets, you have to make that decision for them.

One of our cats lost the ability to make red blood cells due to a disease it had. We put him down when he became short of breath because he was gasping for air but couldn't get enough. He was suffocating.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by rwashburn on March 10th, 2011
I do...and you may think this callous though I do not mean it to be...

looking into the eyes of some of my beautiful dogs, I was torn to make such a decision..I'd given my life for them...I could make that decision with a loved one.if I Knew it was right.

In Genesis.If god did not allow enoch to see death..Isn't that a type of mercy killing (the physical perishing)?

Was Christ work on the cross a mercy killing in absentia of our own?
Comments
- thanks for answering
  
  Report
  
  by Little Monster_09 on March 10th, 2011
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by HasntBeen on November 11th, 2010
voted: Yes
The question frames the topic in such a small box it's easy to get confused. Of course people have a "right to die", but really it's a "right to choose the manner and timing of their death". On what conceivable basis could we grant the state the power to imprison people like this in their own decaying bodies? How could someone not be horrified by that idea? It boggles my mind that a "no" argument to this question can even be formed by the human brain.

Obviously, that's what freedom is: the right to make the key choices about your own life. The state can only revoke those choices in cases where there is clear harm to others which outweighs the value of individual freedom. Assisted suicide isn't even close to meeting that criteria.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Piano playin unicorn with a hat ™ on November 10th, 2010
I don't think that the terminally ill have any choice in whether they die or not. So.......
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Nightwatchdog on November 10th, 2010
voted: Yes
It's YOUR LIFE.....you weren't asked if you wanted to be born - but you certainly have a say when it comes time for it to end.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on November 10th, 2010
voted: Yes
absolutely
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by AB is an asylum run by the inmates, ciao! on November 9th, 2010
voted: Yes
Yes, if they wish to and are able to make that decision for themselves.
Comments
- An Advance Directive is a way to make the decision ahead of time, while one is still in their right mind, and able to communicate. I carry one on my person at all times, in the event of an accident. That frees my next of skin from having to make the call. We all should have the right to live as we want and obtain assistance to die when we want, whether terminally ill or the picture of health.
  
  Report
  
  by Mark on November 10th, 2010
- I agree, that is the best way to handle the situation.
  
  Report
  
  by AB is an asylum run by the inmates, ciao! on November 10th, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Shania on November 9th, 2010
voted: Yes
Yes
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Anonymous on November 8th, 2010
voted: Yes
...Fiercely gripping the spear, the God moved between the two fighters, slowly separating their distance til they could not see the other. No blood would be shed that day, and each would continue down their respective journeys, choosing their own fates, and deciding their destinies, independently...
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Want To Sleep With A Miner on November 8th, 2010
Anyone who truly wishes to die has a right to do so. As far as receiving assistance, I think there should be a waiting period, person must be over 30, with no legal dependants.
Comments
- I agree with most of what you say except the over and legal dependents part.
  
  Report
  
  by Mark on November 10th, 2010
- why do you feel it is acceptable to deny that liberty to people under 30?
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on November 17th, 2010
- Because 30 is a benchmark age where a person can be considered established and not likely to change course in any drastic way.
  
  Report
  
  by Want To Sleep With A Miner on November 17th, 2010
- So, then, 30 should be the youngest for other important choices, such as entering the military. That too can be a life and death choice.
  
  Report
  
  by Mark on November 17th, 2010
- Yes, it can be a life and death choice, but suicide is just a death choice, so I say 30.
  
  Report
  
  by Want To Sleep With A Miner on November 17th, 2010
- no, the choice for or against suicide is a choice between life and death, if you can not choose death then you do not have the life or death choice. who are you to tell a 25 year old that the are not permitted to choose death?
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on November 17th, 2010
- Or a teenager who wants an abortion, or an 18 year old who wants to enlist in the military. By the way, based on what is 30 "the" benchmark age? Why not 29 or 31?
  
  Report
  
  by Mark on November 17th, 2010
- james.... just like most passionate people, he does not use benchmarks. just things everyone should be held to HIS feelings.
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on November 17th, 2010
- Agreed. 30 IS a rounder number! HAHA!
  
  Report
  
  by Mark on November 23rd, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
9 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Missnicolehw on November 8th, 2010
voted: Yes
it the remose of themself to be out of the pain and suffering The doctor say it only a few month A few month one to many with the pain. These people make the descion best for themself to be take out of it's life support is themself. I wouldn't call it murder. Because they asked for it.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by celticmoonlight on July 14th, 2010
yesi agree with it. its an option i would like to have.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by truthWarrior on March 11th, 2011
No. It unacceptably weakens the right to life. There is no way to properly regulate it. The government can't be trusted.
Comments
- And what about the right to die with dignity, instead of living( if you call it ) in your own shit, not being able to do anything without sever pain, absolutely no quality of life at all... right to life...B.S.
  
  Report
  
  by buxtonite ..slowly losing my mind on March 11th, 2011
- @ Bux a person IS free to end their own life anytime they choose. But they shouldn't be allowed to pass that burden onto someone else if they want to end it themselves fine that's their choice but they have to be the one to do it. If they cant or wont then they'll just have to take morphine to ease the pain until they die on their own.
  
  Report
  
  by Funkycherry on March 11th, 2011
- @Bux -- You have to see the big picture. The government doesn't care about the suffering of those people. This a pretext to incrementally take our rights.
  
  Hitler put out a lot of die with dignity propaganda too. That's how it starts. It will incrementally spread until they exterminate anyone who isn't valuable to society.
  
  If we accept euthanasia, we will be under more and more pressure to use it since it is so much cheaper than actually taking care of people. Euthanasia will become seen as a medical treatment.
  
  First it will start with people who have expressed a wish to die. Then it will spread to those who can't express their wishes. As we get ever more collectivist, it will become increasingly the government's call whether it is in society's interest to spend public money treating someone.
  
  They'll do their best to keep rich people alive until they've extracted all their money. Poor people will be killed since they don't contribute to society.
  
  Don't feed the beast.
  
  Report
  
  by truthWarrior on March 11th, 2011
- Funky... the Morphine they are given is watered down.. the drug regulators do this so no one can get hooked on it and thats a fact, this is why the patients have to keep on hitting the auto injector to try and get relief. You say it should not be up to others to do the job.. thats fine BUT allow the dying patient to do it and that is NOT happening. They are being forced to stay alive( if you can call it that ) because of others and their beliefs.
  
  Report
  
  by buxtonite ..slowly losing my mind on March 11th, 2011
- Truth...with proper checks and balances ( which would be easy and cheap to put in place )it would be no problem at all. Anyone can put in the will that they wish to die if totally incapacitated.. the same way as they do now with "do not resuscitate". The government would have nothing to do with any of it, 2 doctors will decide.
  
  Report
  
  by buxtonite ..slowly losing my mind on March 11th, 2011
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
5 comments | Post one | Permalink
by ilikeitwhenitrains on March 10th, 2011
YES.
it is cleaner than suicide.
it is the individuals choice.
Comments
- It's murder, and it wont always be the persons choice some will most likely be tricked into it. What about Hitler euthanizing the mentally handicapped? Was that cleaner and more humane than letting them have the best possible life they could have?
  
  Report
  
  by Funkycherry on March 11th, 2011
- well, are you speaking of inmates. other than that how is it not someones choice. i dont think anyone has the right to go killing mentally handicapped people. legally. i dont know where you got that one from. Hitler...yeah im gonna have to go ahead and say hes an exception. call me crazy though.
  
  Report
  
  by ilikeitwhenitrains on March 11th, 2011
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Suezee77 on March 10th, 2011
I am soooo for it. I watched my mother die of a brain tumor, I watched my husband die of kidney failure. If I am ever diagnosed with any terminal condition, I am heading for the ocean side beach, have one hell of a week, then I will take myself out.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by jess13 on November 12th, 2010
voted: Yes
I think even if you are not terminally ill you have the right to die. If you are going to commit suicide people should not stop you JUST BECAUSE. It's different when the people trying to stop you are loved ones. But when the cops stop you and then lock you up to make you "better" I think that's wrong.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Henderson on November 12th, 2010
voted: Yes
In some cases there will be unbearable pain, which cannot be reduced by morphine, so it's perfectly makes sense to take decision to end the life rather than continuing suffering.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by goodbyebag on November 11th, 2010
voted: Yes
as a matter of fact i tell my family to pull the plug if i ever need life support to stay alive.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Robertd903 on November 11th, 2010
voted: Yes
...as long as it's the PATIENT who actually terminates his/her life. It's the patient's decision to end his/her life, therefore it should be the patient who "takes" his/her own life.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Artful Bodger on November 11th, 2010
voted: Yes
My life is my own, and I shall choose to live it or end it.
What right has anyone to constrain my choice in this matter in accordance with their personal superstitions? None!
I love life, and presently enjoy good health, but if I were to become a burden to myself and others, I would have no hesitation in concluding my tenure. I have lived a joyous and interesting life, but if it were to degenerate into a mere existence, I would feel not the slightest guilt in heading for the exit. When you have fulfilled all of your desires, and most of your fantasies, you don't want to live as an oyster.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by popcorn on November 10th, 2010
voted: Yes
If we euthanise old pets that are in pain and suffering, why shouldn't we do the same for our loved ones instead of watching them suffer for days, weeks, months, years? It's just common sense, and it's not suicide. It's a medical decision based on facts.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by danrather1 on November 10th, 2010
voted: Yes
I am a firm believer in the choice to die. I really don't have a moral code book to say it is not OK. If you are ready to give up the greatest gift ever given and brave the other side, you should be allowed. The people that assist you should not be punished as long as there are several documents proving your intent to die was established.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on November 10th, 2010
voted: Yes
If you had a sick dog, in constant pain, barely able to move or eat, you would have it put to sleep.
Humans on the other hand, must endure suffering and indignity until medical science can no longer force them to keep living, even in circumstances where just 20 years ago the person in question would have died.
Indeed, a hundred years ago, many of those currently in intensive care wards would not have lived long enough to reach a hospital, never mind lingering for months, or even years, in agony.
If a person has no quality of life, why should they not be allowed the dignity of a pain free death?
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Davjohn on November 10th, 2010
voted: No
The only inalienable rights endowed by our Creator are Life, Liberty (Freedom), and The Pursuit of Happiness (Ownership of Property).
There are no guarantees, or rights, of jobs, wealth, or the time and means of death.
Comments
- Really, how about we rephrase that, and take the word "Right" out of the equation: Should people be aloud to make the choice to die?
  
  Report
  
  by Reptar on November 10th, 2010
- The answer is flat-out wrong, it's not complicated. People have a right to do *anything* except those things which can be justifiably denied to them. That's what freedom is, and if one doesn't naturally understand how critical freedom is, there's no point in talking about rights.
  
  So the question isn't whether or not there's a "right to die", the question is whether the state has the right to *deny* someone the choice. The 90% of people responding 'yes' to "right to die" on this question are really saying that the state does not have denial rights. There is insufficient justification for the state being able to imprison someone in their own body.
  
  Report
  
  by HasntBeen on November 11th, 2010
- This answer is a bunch of BS, Davjohn.
  
  Report
  
  by marley13 on November 13th, 2010
- we have the right to life, not the obligation to life. if there is no right to not live then life is no longer a right.
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on November 17th, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
4 comments | Post one | Permalink
by lilipad130 on November 10th, 2010
voted: Yes
All people should be given the chance to decide what they want to do with their own body. When coming to a great and seriousness illness whom the person is ill mannered, should be given the right to request a ending to their life.. Nobody should be standing in the way from someones desire to be free of pain. By letting someone continue to live through all pain, is no life wanted by any man.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Kinda_K on November 10th, 2010
voted: No
God is the only one who can give us life and take it from us..we can't play God..
killing people is murder no matter what is the reason for it...
Comments
- what if the individual wants to die...is that still murder? Does God want his subjects to die slow agonizing deaths when they could just end in one quick action. Why would God want people to suffer? I don't even see how this is "playing God", if they are already dying, God has done his work, some people just want to speed up the procedure is all.
  
  Report
  
  by Reptar on November 10th, 2010
- It's not murder if the individual is making an adult, free choice. That turns 'murder' into a silly word.
  
  Report
  
  by HasntBeen on November 11th, 2010
- Totally agree, guys. If the person wants to die, then that is his/her decision, which eliminates murder from the equation.
  
  Report
  
  by marley13 on November 13th, 2010
- Isn't is "playing God" to give that person medicine in order to artificially lengthen their lifespan instead of letting them die naturally? Or do you object to that too?
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on November 14th, 2010
- Again, that is the person's decision. If they want to artificially extend their life with medicine, let them go ahead and do so.
  
  Report
  
  by marley13 on November 15th, 2010
- Good point. Actually it's kind of a distortion to talk about "playing God". First, there's no evidence that God exists. But beyond that, to play God, one would have to part the Red Sea, create life from nothing, and number the hairs on every head. Someone handing out medicine doesn't really qualify.
  
  Report
  
  by HasntBeen on November 15th, 2010
- Thank you for your answer, Marley, but my question was directed at Kinda_K.
  
  Report
  
  by Anonymous on November 15th, 2010
- My bad, Meridian...
  
  Report
  
  by marley13 on November 15th, 2010
- why can't we play god? is not medecine playing go? is not gene modification playing god? is not the invention of artificial inteligence playing god? is not the invention of the computer playing god? giving man flight? farming? simple sexual reproduction? looks to me like human existence is a constant state of learning to play god better all the time.
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on November 17th, 2010
- is it not playing god to keep the man or woman alive as well as killing them? To say that it is gods will for them to live instead of die because of machines, makes me think you appose hospitalization of the sick.
  
  Report
  
  by xXxsnnyDaythryxXx Rain is fighting back on November 18th, 2010
- @ Meridian the Imaginary
  If a person is about to fell down from a very high place..what do you do in that case??you stand their and look at him..or you try to help him with everything you can.
  When you give a person a medicne in order to lengthen his lifespan is not the same as looking at him dieng..
  
  that person medicine in order to artificially lengthen their lifespan instead of letting them die naturally
  
  Report
  
  by Kinda_K on November 26th, 2010
- Inappropriate comparison: someone falling from a high place presumably does not choose to fall. You've missed the crucial ethical point completely.
  
  Report
  
  by HasntBeen on November 26th, 2010
- it doesn't matter if he chose to fall down(die)or not..it is about helping him or letting him die..
  
  Report
  
  by Kinda_K on November 27th, 2010
- But by your own admission. God has the right to decide who lives or dies. You did include live in that statement. Thereby saying that to artificially lengthen life is playing god, which we have already established is wrong in your eyes.
  I don't understand how preventing further suffering in one way is any different than preventing it another. The intent is the same.
  
  Report
  
  by neveroddoreven on November 27th, 2010
- must suck to have so many people question your belief on the subject. Its great fun to read, id love to see something done in the oposite of ur opinion, but i feel like someone shud be saying u have a right to your opinion ^_^'
  
  Report
  
  by xXxsnnyDaythryxXx Rain is fighting back on December 4th, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
15 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Devin on November 10th, 2010
voted: Yes
Well all have the right to hire someone to kill us if we want to die, even if we are not sick.

IF women have the right to hire someone to kill their offspring for any reason, another human, certainly we all have the right to hire someone to kill ourselves for any reason we see fit.
Comments
- I seldom agree with you but in this case you are correct.
  
  Report
  
  by Mark on November 10th, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Self Consuming Cannibal on November 9th, 2010
voted: Yes
I definitely think so. Consider the fact that we make that decision for animals that are suffering everyday and they can't even tell us if they want to die.

When a person is suffering so much that they want to die and they can voice this opinion, I think euthanasia should be their right.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Tom Slick on November 9th, 2010
voted: Yes
the question really should ask if the terminally ill have the right to terminate their own lives, but I guess wording it that way is somehow more controversial or offensive because it means suicide, at a minimum, and even murder in some people's opinion ... that's somewhat of an indication of how sensitive this topic is ... but I believe someone who is terminally ill, especially if they're suffering, should have the option to die in peace, and at their own hand ... just because we have the machines and technology to prolong life, doesn't mean we have to ... we put our pets down when they are old and infirm ... why should we treat our dog or cat with more compassion than we do for grandpa or grandma

BTW ... this is a good place to mention, if you haven't signed an Advance Directive yet, get on it
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Christine on November 9th, 2010
voted: No
If choosing to die is allowed, then some terminally ill patients will be pressured to die in order to save money. This problem becomes all the more critical when a government that cannot manage money is put in charge of healthcare.

People have a right to pain medication and to be comfortable, and people have a right to write a living will saying they will not allow extraordinary measures to keep them alive. (And if they consider any medical attention not available in the wilderness to be extraordinary, then their wishes should be respected.) No one however has a right to murder anyone, not even themselves.
Comments
- Why wouldn't someone have the right to kill them selves? People have a right to do with their bodies as the please, it's something thats above any law. This is my temple, who are you to dictate what I can and can not do with it?
  
  Report
  
  by Reptar on November 10th, 2010
- We all have a right to life and a right to liberty. We do not have rights to murder and slavery, and saying that we do puts us on a path to institutionalizing both. As healthcare costs rise, the sick and elderly will be encouraged to exercise their right to die, and will be subject to shame and humiliation if they refuse.
  
  Furthermore, our rights over our bodies are not unlimited. I have the right to sex, but if I exercise that right and conceive a child, I do not have the right to murder my child just because she is still a part of my body. We don't live in a vacuum. All life is interconnected.
  
  Report
  
  by Christine on November 10th, 2010
- Okay...How about we put this in a different context. Instead of just focusing on the professional side of this....what about a parent who is suffering much but dying slow. They ask their child to help them end their misery, to stop the suffering, the pain. Would that be wrong?
  
  With the baby example is more about cause and effect. You chose to something, and have to LIVE with the effects it causes. Making the choice to kill your self to avoid suffering is your choice to make...no one else's. You're not physically hurting another human by that action...only your self.
  
  Report
  
  by Reptar on November 10th, 2010
- The state does not have the right to deny someone this choice, period. It's simple: the state is not my mommy, and if I want to die it has no power in the matter. If I need help to accomplish that, that is not murder, it's mercy.
  
  It verges on totalitarianism to have the state to be so intrusive that it can force someone to stay alive by denying them the freedom to get help. That is a fundamentally anti-freedom posture.
  
  Report
  
  by HasntBeen on November 11th, 2010
- There is nothing wrong with keeping a patient comfortable, even if that means dangerous doses of pain medication, so long as the intention of the medication is to relieve pain, not cause death.
  
  If the United States did not hold the purse strings for the healthcare of the elderly, then you could make an argument that someone can direct their doctor to give them whatever they want, even intentionally lethal 'services.' However, as long as the United States does fund healthcare, any 'right' to death is in real danger of becoming an obligation as the Federal government demonstrates its increasing inability to handle money.
  
  Report
  
  by Christine on November 11th, 2010
- I don't see how that argument holds together at all. We're talking about the *patient* initiating action on their own behalf. That has nothing whatsoever to do with who pays for services or administers the paperwork. The government does not have the right to deny death to someone who wants it. Neither do they have the right to euthanize anybody for their own purposes. Both are equally tyrannical.
  
  Report
  
  by HasntBeen on November 11th, 2010
- Hasntbeen wins. Next.
  
  Report
  
  by yhtomit91 on November 13th, 2010
- Hasntbeen does not understand the concept of 'conflict of interest.' I agree that the government does not have the right to force extraordinary life saving measures. Nor do they have the right to deny life saving measures to save money. The question is whether patients can be expected to deliberately kill themselves or if doctors can be expected to deliberately kill their patients.
  
  Report
  
  by Christine on November 15th, 2010
- The problem from the physician's and the surviving family's point of view exists in determining whether a minimum dosage of painkiller will provide enough comfort to override the pain. Frequently, terminal patients cry out in pain only to be told they're already getting all the painkiller that can be legally administered. Shouldn't the person who is feeling the pain get to make that call for themselves? If they're terminal, how can anyone else determine if said comfort level has been achieved?
  
  Report
  
  by Rufus_T_Firefly on November 15th, 2010
- Doctors take an oath to do no harm. I'd trust them over the state to act in the patient's best interest. I agree there should not be legal obstacles to a doctor doing what she thinks is best. A painkiller is for stopping pain, and as long as the doctor is administering it only for the purpose of stopping the pain, and the patient understands that the necessary dose could as a side effect cause death, then it is not the state's business. I understood that the law already allowed whatever pain medication was necessary to alleviate pain. If not, then it should be changed.
  
  No one however should be administering medicine with the express purpose of ending life.
  
  Report
  
  by Christine on November 15th, 2010
- @Rufus: I'm not sure what the law is, but when my mother was dying of cancer they gave her a tray of morphine vials -- she was free to take one whenever she needed.
  
  @Christine: "an oath to do no harm" is correct. Sometimes you do harm by keeping someone alive when they want to die. You just need a less simplistic understanding of what "harm" is.
  
  Report
  
  by HasntBeen on November 15th, 2010
- @HasntBeen: I'm sure that type of patient freedom varies from doctor to doctor.
  
  Report
  
  by Rufus_T_Firefly on November 15th, 2010
- Yeah, I suppose so. If she had taken the whole tray at once, she could have saved herself a few agonizing final weeks. She didn't make that choice, but I'm still glad Christine wasn't on the ethics committee which might have taken the tray away out of some strange tangling of politics and philosophy.
  
  Report
  
  by HasntBeen on November 15th, 2010
- What makes you think I'd take the tray away, or think that an ethics committee is more qualified than her doctor? Intention matters, and there is nothing wrong with alleviating pain or being comfortable.
  
  Report
  
  by Christine on November 15th, 2010
- That was exactly my point, Christine. Only the patient his/herself can know how much pain is too much to bear and if they deem it unbearable and desire and choose to end things swiftly, who are we to tell them they cannot?
  
  Report
  
  by Rufus_T_Firefly on November 15th, 2010
- Christine, it seems to me that you're on a bit of a rant about politics: Obamacare is taking over our lives and giving us death panels or whatever. Aside from not being true, it's irrelevant to the question at hand: whether or not the state has the right to make suicide (or assisted suicide) illegal. The argument against that is simple -- that's making the state into a tyrant. Imagine *forcing* someone to live against their will! Incredible. Unbelievable that anyone would think that's justified somehow -- the state is not my mommy (she's gone) -- and they have not the slightest business whatsoever saying anything about how I choose to die if that's my choice. Not the slightest.
  
  Report
  
  by HasntBeen on November 15th, 2010
- Well, at least we both agree that doctors and patients, not the state, should be in charge of healthcare, and we agree the state should not interfere with unlimited, even potentially lethal pain medication.
  
  I realize there are areas of morality where the law does more harm than good when it tries to enforce what's right. If my view were fully enacted, the government wouldn't be able to tell why patients were taking their chosen amounts of pain medication, let alone interfere, and so the difference between our views strikes me as purely theoretical.
  
  Report
  
  by Christine on November 16th, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
17 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Simply Pengu on November 8th, 2010
voted: Yes
if the patient wants to unplug then it's necessary to do it. it's wrong to take them off LS if they say no.

in the event that the patient cannot make a deicision, then a next of kin should make that decision.

if the patient has no relations and cannot make a decision then they should be taken off LS.

a terminally ill patient implies that nothing can be done to make that person healthy again and they will die. in preventing the inevitable, only effort is wasted and the patient will still die.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by maknfriends on November 8th, 2010
voted: Yes
Not only do they have the right to die, but they, as well as you and I, will die. But here's the clinker: only when God pulls the plug.
Comments
- And if your god doesn't exist in that person's world? What then?
  
  Report
  
  by Rufus_T_Firefly on November 15th, 2010
- I can only answer the question from my original vantage point because in my world God does exist. But hypothetically speaking, if in your world, God does not exist, then you revert back to man's rule.
  
  Report
  
  by maknfriends on November 15th, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink