Euthanasia

One Ans, which I offer with some diffidence, is:- "IF THE PATIENT 'IS SUFFERING-EXTREME PAIN ' AND IS NOT ABLE OF THEIR OWN VOLITION ,TO MAKE THE "LET ME DIE OF NATURAL CAUSES DECISION" BUT ARE KEPT ALIVE,AGAINST THEIR WILL. I DO NOT HOLD THIS TO BE RIGHT.. .ie:- IF THE PRE-CURSORY CONDITION IS THIS, ''THAT THEY ARE ONLY ALIVE BECAUSE OF CONSTANT MEDICAL SUPPORT AND DOCTORS MEDICAL ARTS' and are in 'CONSTANT PAIN AND SUFFERING'-Then, and only then,! "The one dying is assisted in the process, by the removal, or witholding of their current life sustaining medication/ equipment, or support, by a Doctor/ partner/,close blood relative/,or established family friend, who is able to perceive, that it is more MERCIFUL to allow them to die,(ALBEIT WITH PAIN-KILLERS) (by making the "CEASE SUPPORT DECISION") than to keep them living on in a constant state of agony, pain and misery, (Which I hold to be cruel !!)..and this is done for them, because they are no longer physically or mentally able to comprehend their STATE ,(owing to, and by their condition,) and are, therefore, 'NOT ABLE OF THEIR OWN VOLITION' to make the "ALLOW ME TO DIE" from natural causes decision. (Essentially it is, 'TO LET LIVE, OR LET DIE', on the basis of- 'IS THE PERSON IN CONSTANT PAIN-YES or NO?. THIS MY ANSWER ,-DOES NOT MEAN I COULD, OR WOULD MAKE THE DECISION,...but to those faced with the dilemma- I see that "MERCY ON THE SUFFERER" seems a right answer.

Advantages are that the person stops suffering from the pain that they may have it also depends on the condition if the person is mentally disabled and very sick, that person would probably wish to die than live. Disadvatages are that the person starts depending on other person to help them or do something. The person can get saved by pain management, psychological support, family support, and economical support. The doctors can diagnose wrong too and then what if there is a chance of that person living but other people dont realize it. Every person has a right to live as long as they want so no one should take their lives away from them.

I doubt that there is any correlation between these two things. Atheists, like theists and deists, are individuals with many different views about many things. They just happen not to believe in any god. They may still have views of right and wrong that are very similar to those of religious people.

In the situation where a person suffering with an incurable disease, Persons of any religion or no religion may or may not euthanasia is the more merciful alternative compared to having the person spend more time wasting away.

In the U.S.A, they have over 50 states and only 3 states have made it legal for euthanasia to be practiced.

Euthanasia is the ending of a life because of pain, illness, or immense suffering. It can can refer to "assisted suicide" (voluntary) or the ending of a life without the person's consent (active). It refers to either humans or animals. Euthanasia of humans is illegal in many parts of the world and there is much debate of whether it is murder or not.

for me im not agree to euthanasia or mercy killing

because in the bible it is stated that thou shall not kill

and in the criminal law killing is punishable so we should not agree in euthanasia

Hmm, interesting question! Depends on what you mean. Euthanasia literally means "Good death". The opposite could be a "bad death". Examples could, depending on your views, range from freezing to death to dying of cancer to murder. That is only the literal meaning however, so this example doesn't hold up well to criticism Another opposite could be resurrection since euthanasia is a form of death. Or, if you went into much more detail, you could come up with a very strange idea. Euthanasia usually refers to a third party ending the life of a person with that person's voluntary permission. Therefor, one way to look at it would be for a person (opposite of third party) resurrecting/causing to be born (opposite of ending the life) against his or her own will (again, opposite of third party, and also opposite of with their permission). In other words, a person causing himself/herself to be born, or resurrecting themselves, against their will. Not sure what you would call that :-)

* This slippery debate is for pro and con regarding Euthanasia and two of the most important issues are the Oath that doctors take to preserve life and that of religious faith. 50% of doctors are pro Euthanasia (for certain patients.) However, for years doctors are using a form of Euthanasia ... upon the request of the patient or their family 'disconnecting from machines to keep them alive' or, giving the patient no medication with the exception of morphine for pain and morphine will eventually weaken the patient's heart and they will die. Different Forms of Euthanasia: Assisted suicide ... suicide by the patients own hand or doctors stopping certain treatments to keep a patient in a great deal of pain alive and assisting the patient or their family to stop different forms of treatment and give pain medication as needed until the patient passes on. The pro debate for Euthanasia is that under the Human Rights Act an individual has a right to take their own life if they are in great pain and will soon pass away and the con debate is that of a doctor following an Oath he took to preserve life and also religious beliefs that nature should take it course with full medical help. The fear is that doctors or those who assist in suicides will do so with other disease where the patient may have some quality of life and that it will only turn into a Adolf Hitler type of genocide. The great question 'Who is next with what type of disease?' One case is an elderly man who is dying from a heart disease and he and his wife love each other greatly and the two have requested by a court of law that they can die together. The debate rages on because the husband is in poor health, but his wife is healthy. To date no decision has been made. However, that being said, patients or in this case the man's wife can often keep medications and use certain medications to end their lives anyway without a court ruling.

Euthanasia: Killing the hopelessly sick for reasons of mercy.

Passive: Letting them die.

Active: Causing their death.

Voluntary: Causing their death at their request. = Assisted suicide.

Involuntary: Causing their death against their wishes or interests.

Physician assisted suicide is when a doctor administers an injection to a patient with their consent, which kills them.

Allowing a patient to die is where a ventilator and other equipment is disconnected from a patient and they pass away because they are too sick to live without the equipment turned on. An example might be where a brain dead person is kept alive by a ventilator because they can't breath on their own since the brain is dead.

== == == == * The Bible does not discuss euthanasia. It was not written in a time when the term was in use. This is a very edgy topic and some people do not agree with it while others do. Christians believe that to take your own life is wrong and that's what euthanasia is. * Although there is nothing about the topic in the Bible, one of the 10 commandments says 'thou shall not kill.' Christians believe in 'the sanctity of life,' meaning that life is a precious and sacred gift from God which only God has the right to give or take away. We are stewards of the life God has given us, not masters. Pope John Paul said, 'We should not kill those who's suffering WE cannot bare.' These are a few of the many reasons Christians believe Euthanasia is wrong.

== ==

It's a difficult subject to discuss. Many people think it's wrong to take your own life (or for someone to willingly help you end your life) - even if it means you're freed from the suffering of terminal and/or painful illness. From my own point of view - I would much rather end my life (or give permission for someone to help me) than be left in a vegetative state or in severe pain just because the law says the medical profession mustprolong my life indefinitely !

As a person who has witnessed pain and suffering, I personally support voluntary euthanasia. I would like to have the security and peace of mind of knowing that when I am in pain or terminally ill, I may have the right to end my own life with dignity and at peace, instead of dying in a hospital bed, in pain, relying on others for everything. Despite my strong views on this matter I will try my best to write this in an unbiased manner. Voluntary euthanasia is when a person decides that they are ready to die and that they will kill themselves, but in my opinion it is different to suicide. Voluntary euthanasia is usually used to refer to somebody who is terminally ill and suffering, where no treatment or effective pain relief is available and they would rather end their lives. Some people who are depressed refer to their suicide as 'voluntary euthanasia' but in my opinion this is not the same. There isn't much 'middle ground' on voluntary euthanasia. Most people either support it or don't. It is a highly controversial topic and is legal in some places but illegal across most of the world. Mostly, voluntary euthanasia is done by taking drugs - generally barbiturates (Nembutal/sodium pentothol). These drugs are extremely hard to get hold of - but they can be prescribed. For this reason, voluntary euthanasia is also known as Doctor-Assisted Suicide or DAS. I will use this abbreviation for the sake of spending less time typing. This may not be strictly accurate as sometimes patients manage to get hold of suitable drugs and carry out the suicide themselves without help from a medical professional. DAS is especially controversial because some older patients may have some degree of dementia or have their mental capacity affected by an illness. Then it degenerates into an argument over who has the right to decide when somebody will die. The doctor? The family? The friends? The patient who may not have full control of their mind? Should people who may benefit from the will have no say? Should this be a theological question - only God may decide when to end a life? Most opposition to euthanasia comes from extreme right-to-life groups. They are generally, but not exclusively, religious, especially fundamental Christian and most also oppose abortion. Their grounds for resisting are generally that only God may bestow life and only God may decide when a life is ready to end. The majority of Australians - over 80% - support voluntary euthanasia. There are some valid reasons why it must be carefully controlled if it is legalised, because there are many ways that it could be abused. However, the image of a person dying alone and in pain is not a pleasant one. I believe that it is better that people can make this decision themselves when they feel it is time.

Science would say very little about it except the best methods!

Scientists use a form of philosophy called bioethics to answer these types of moral questions as the "scientific method" doesn't work.

The prinicles of bioethics involve weighting up a persons individual circumstances under the headings of benificence, nonmalificence, justice and autonomy.

Soo a debate about euthinasia in a particular circumstance might run allong the lines-

Beneficence - does it benefit the person to die? Yes, they will no longer be in pain.

Nonmalificence - does it do harm to patient or others? No, the patient wants to die and the familly are happy with their decision.

Justice - Is it the right thing to do ? Probably we cannot offer any other effective treatment at this time.

Autonomy - Did the patient come to the decision by themselves and are we respecting the persons personal belifes? Yes, they have asked to die. They are of sound mind and understand what they have asked. They have asked on several occasions so its not just depression due to death being close.

Under these circumstances some scientists will still be unwilling to aid a person in euthinasia. The doctor's and nurses autonomy must also be considered, so it is their right to refuse, for what ever personal reasons they have.

No. Animal euthanasia is not good and is wrong. Here are some reasons why:

Animal euthanasia is not natural.

Animal euthanasia discourages vets to find new cures.

Animals should be cared for until they die naturally.

Animal euthanasia discourages vets to actually care for the animals.

We shouldn't TAKE the life of an animal.

Think about this: if you were to euthanize a suffering animal (due to the cost of a cure for example) did you really love it? Because if you did, would you kill it or care for it? And you never know, your care could result in a healthy, loving pet.

Active euthanasia is when medications are given with the intent to cause or hasten the death of a patient. The drug kills the patient. Passive euthanasia is when care is stopped in order to stop artificially prolonging a patient's life. In this case the patient dies of a natural disease (albeit one that may have been treatable).

In both cases consent is given by the patient or the patient's agent. If no consent is given, or in some cases implied, it is not euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is a well accepted legal practice. Active euthanasia in people is controversial and illegal in most places.

This should be contrasted with giving a medication with the intent of treating a disease or symptom, not with the intention of ending the life, despite knowing that it may hasten the death, which is also well established and legal. It is OK to give morphine to relieve shortness of breath even though you know it might hasten the death of the patient. It is not OK in most places to give morphine for the purpose of hastening the death of a person who is suffering from shortness of breath.

Euthanasia, abortion and physician assisted suicide is prohibited in the Philippines.

Its the persons freedom of choice, if they want to they have the right to die. People would rather die in honor than in pain and misery. It is also a way of relief when a persons quaility of life is low. Its basically killing someone.

some people think euthanasia is like "putting people to sleep" and doctors are playing god. some people think it's as bad as killing someone. some people think it should be allowed because it "puts people out of misery" like someone who is suffering from a painful disease or some misfortune of life and wants to die. it's as big a controversial topic as abortion.

Euthanasia should be allowed in presence of a high ranked police officer or a Gazetted officer who is not related to the person. And who will not in anyway gain monetary benefits, like inheriting something.

It comes from ancient Greek roots eu thanatos meaning good death.

By the end of 2009, there had been 417 recorded legal assisted suicides in the United States. 401 of theses were done in Washington and the other 16 in Oregon. These are two of the three states that it is currently legal in, the other is Montana but there were not any recorded assisted suicides there that year as it was not legalized until January 2010.

==One Answer== Every person should be able to control their own destiny whatever that may be. ==Another Answer== * It provides a way to relieve extreme pain. * It provides a way of relief when a person's quality of life is low. * It frees up medical funds to help other people. * It is another case of freedom of choice.

It is morally wrong because God should pick when you die and also since your killing your self you are breaking a sin basically you are committing murder.

That is why it is morally wrong.