The YouthInAsia is running wild, brother!

[Ultra Awesome]

Not really, no; but I needed a catchy title for this thread...

I’m sure by now, almost everyone has heard of the term, Euthenasia--Otherwise known as assisted suicide or mercy killing before. Now, for those that don’t know, Euthenasia is when a patient (usually on death’s row) kills himself with the help of someone else (usually a doctor) via lethal injection (etc) or by having the medication that keeps the said patient alive being taken away from them. On its own, Euthenasia is a widely controversial topic. Many people have argued whether people have the right to commit suicide with the assist of another or not.

But before I go on, I’d like to point out that there are two kinds of Euthenasia.


1) Passive Euthenasia: The first of the two. This is when a patient who is on death row has their medication removed from the patient per request and is left to die on his own. No one interferes with the man physically, and it is his own sickness that gradually takes his own life away.


2) Active Euthenasia: The second of the two. This is when one physically interferes with the said patient’s life and kills him via overdose in medication, lethal injection (etc) per patient’s request. The bad thing with this one is that technically speaking, it would be considered murder—which, of course, is a big no-no. But to the same time, it allows the patient to die as he will and lets him or her chose the time of death that they chose. In other words, the patient dies with dignity.


Both--specifically active euthanasia, are very controversial. Some claim that it is wrong to allow someone to take his own life no matter what the cause; others say that if people want to die, then who are they to stop them. It comes to the point where you have to think whether either of the two versions are morally correct or incorrect. Thus, it creates the mass arguments that have been showed quite often throughout the world.

So with that said, I ask you…


What is your stance on Euthenaisia as a whole?

 Given the answer​

Of the two, Passive and Active Euthenasia, which would you prefer?


Just as the questions suggest, I’d like to know what you think about someone aiding a patient on death’s row to committing suicide. Do you view it as good or bad? Or do you just not care? Then, given the response, which would you see as a better method for one [who is on death row] to take his (or her) own life, passive euthanasia or active euthenasia?

 

[Davi323]

Passive: I am okay with this, as long as the patient has clearly expressed their desire to be allowed to die, are in a non-recoverable state, and would not be alive at all were it not for the machines. and the method used is simply turning off of the machines to let their body naturally shut itself off. Passive euthanasia doesn't kill anyone, it just stops artificially keeping them alive. This is similar to patients requesting a DNR (Do Not Rescusitate) in case something happens. Its the same concept...the doctor or nurse isn't directly killing them, they are simply not keeping them alive any longer. Removing a barrier to death is not the same as forcing the issue.

Active: I am adamantly opposed to active euthanasia. This is not letting a patient die, this is directly causing them to die. I see a huge difference ethically between letting a body die on its own and actively taking a life. As soon as you take actions to be the direct cause of the death, whether you want to call it assisted suicide or whatever term you feel like, it isn't euthanasia, its murder.

If a body that would have died on its own before being hooked up to life support machines to stay alive artificially is removed from those machines, and allowed to die on its own, I am okay with it.

If a body that would live on its own before being injected with a combination of drugs designed to kill it is injected with those drugs, causing it to die, I am not.

 

[Arkham Noir]

Passive Euthenasia: This one I almost feel like isn't really a form of euthenasia. I understand why it is considered it, but really all that is happening is the person in question is no longer doing everything they can do to stay alive. It is accepting death and is essentially taking your life, but I really don't have a problem with it because it is the person's life and we have no right to tell them they have to live.

Active Euthenasia:Is it murder ? Is it right ? This is one of those times where practicality and nature clash with man made laws, which is where alot of the problems come from. That and just the simple fact that most consider it nothing more than suicide. You know what though, people need to realize that we should all have control of our own lives. It is very similar to abortion; it is easier to form an opinion and imply it to others than when your in the situation. I've seen family members lying in hospitals awaiting death. Suffering from the pain their soon-to-be former bodies are giving them. If they want to make the choice to end it all, than who is anybody in the world to say no. Mercy should trumph law . We are not the person suffering. We are not the person who has to lie awake hoping death will finally come. So how can we just sit here and say "Well, it's better than being dead". As I said, we should all have the right no make our own choices here, and I believe the person has the right to end their suffering and accept death if they want to.

What is ironic about the whole thing is that people will always seperate the two, but their isn't much of a difference. There is an hypothetical theory that fits well here:

There is a train going down the tracks. There are 10 people tied up on the tracks that the train is on. However, there is an alternate route branching off that the train could go instead. However, on those tracks there is 3 people tied up. Do you let the train go and kill 10 people or do you change its course and kill only three? By switching the tracks, you are causing the train to purposily go and kill the three people, but by doing nothing, 10 people will die. But in case two, you aren't responsible for killing them.There is no blood on your hands.

Do you see where I'm going with this ? In both forms of euthenasia, you are letting someone die. The only difference is that in one your hands are clean. But isn't the end result the same? I will agree with Davi323, you are letting your body go naturally with Passive euthenasia, but in the big picture is it really any different? Those people just have the luxury of their illness being capable of ending it for them. Where as the others are forced to suffer through the torture.

As I said earlier,People should have the choice . It is there life. If it means letting things just happen or actively doing it themselves, it is there choice to make, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

This is a pretty tough question to answer just like every question where morals are involved. How morally correct is it to let pain wreck havoc on a person's body whom we know cannot recover from their illness as compared to giving them a lethal injection that would end their misery?

Euthanasia is a controversial topic surely but I for one see no problem with it given the correct set of circumstances. Obviously the patient's consent should be involved but apart from that a lot of other things as well like the patient's age, his illness and whether there is even a remote possibility that he might recover from the illness. Keeping all these things in mind the final decision should be that of the doctor and the patient. If they both agree to it, I find no reason why euthanasia should not be carried out.

As for the two forms I would actually support active euthanasia. Because I feel that in the case of passive euthanasia the patient will suffer a lot of pain in the end if his medication is taken away from him. From what I have heard, the lethal injection that is given to a patient causes him to die peacefully and without experiencing any pain. I do feel that it is the better way out ie to die peacefully rather than in pain.

 

[LSN80]

Not really, no; but I needed a catchy title for this thread...

Catchy title my friend. It certainly grabbed my attention!

1)This is when a patient who is dying has their medication removed from the patient per request and is left to die on his own. No one interferes with the man physically, and it is his own sickness that gradually takes his own life away.

How do you feel about Passive Euthenasia?:

The key here is gradually. I dont understand why anyone would choose this option whatsoever. Sure, the person may think that they are bad off as is, but how rationally are they thinking? To go off one's medication would likely make one far worse, but I suppose its their right. That being said, if it was a family member of mine, Id sure as heck do everything in my power to keep them from going this route. It wouldn't be for the selfish reasons of keeping them around longer, rather to reduce their suffering. So unless its going to make for a faster, less painful death then the sufferring they're currently experiencing in the here and now, I don't like the notion of passive euthanasia, but its certainly the person's right.

2) The second of the two. This is when one physically interferes with the said patient’s life and kills him via overdose in medication, lethal injection (etc) per patient’s request. The bad thing with this one is that technically speaking, it would be considered murder—which, of course, is a big no-no. But to the same time, it allows the patient to die as he will and lets him or her chose the time of death that they chose. In other words, the patient dies with dignity.

How do you feel about Active Euthenasia?:

This is, however one may word it, murder. I personally don't find anything dignified about it. It may be done with all the good intentions in the world, but the end result is that a human life is still being taken at the hand of the other. It's wrong to take the life of someone for any reason, even if the reasons are completely altruistic. It blurs the line between what is acceptable and what is not in terms of taking lives and any type of doing so is wrong. But again, I take my argument back to a family member. If I had a family member that was suffering greatly, I would want them to die in the most comfortable and humane way possible. Still, I would hope that this could be avoided and I could never bring myself to knowingly be a party in this practice. It's murder, however you want to rationalize it. Even if the term does translate to "good death." There's an argument here for mercy over a man made law, but where does one draw the line?

What is your stance on Euthenaisia as a whole?

Despite being defined as "good death", Im against it. Its not so subjective when it involves a family member, but the idea of someone killing themself by taking themself off of medication or by a doctor administrating a lethaql doseage of medication is something I can't possibly condone. It's suicide
and murder, and I think there's always another way.

Of the two, Passive and Active Euthenasia, which would you prefer?

I can't give a straightforward answer to this, as Im against both. My emotional brain tells me "whatever would cause less sufferring for a loved one", while my logical brain can't find a way to condone either because they're essentially suicide and murder, both of which Im firmly against.

Just as the questions suggest, I’d like to know what you think about someone aiding a patient on death’s row to committing suicide. Do you view it as good or bad?

Im of the belief that someone on death row should suffer as much as possible. To get on death row, the crime someone commits is generally very heinous. I understand the rationale that they're someone's son, daughter, brother, sister, etc., but i think they've given up their rights to "humane" treatment based upon their inhumane treatment of others. Being that Im against the death penalty, Im also of the inclination that its a bad thing for someone on death row to be given an "easy out" in order to end their life.

Or do you just not care? Then, given the response, which would you see as a better method for one [who is on death row] to take his (or her) own life, passive euthanasia or active euthenasia?

Passive, I suppose, as long as it means they suffer more. I believe people on death row should die natural deaths as is, and of the worst kind. They should be left in a cell with limitede exposure to the outside world and to the rights human beings are afforded, including the medications needed to keep them alive. So passive euthanasia would be the better choice in my eyes, as they've given up their rights to humane treatment.

 

[Next Jericho]

My thoughts on Euthasia are that if someone wants to take his/her's life then they should have the option to do so. I also think that if someone is in pain every single day and will eventually die then I see no reason why that person should not be given a respectful death to stop their pain then that should be allowed. I think that religion should allow people to end their life's if they are in pain all the time and will eventually die from the pain because if God wants to put us on this Earth to life happy and peaceful lifes then why would he want us to suffer all the time for something that person has not done?

 

[Ultra Awesome]

Firstly, I want to thank everyone who has posted in my thread. Some very interesting responses in here.

But now, I'd like to take the time and adress a few points that have caught my attention (and I am against).

Active: I am adamantly opposed to active euthanasia. This is not letting a patient die, this is directly causing them to die. I see a huge difference ethically between letting a body die on its own and actively taking a life. As soon as you take actions to be the direct cause of the death, whether you want to call it assisted suicide or whatever term you feel like, it isn't euthanasia, its murder.

Here's the difference though. Choice. If the said person chooses to die, then there shouldn't be anything restricting them to die. Granted, this is much more different than your average day suicide. In day-to-day suicides, people kill themselves because either they can't handle the pressure of life or for some other [stupid] reason. But in the case of active euthenasia, the difference is that the said person will die no matter what the case. His life is set. He has so-and-so left to live and there's nothing he can do about. So now, given that situation, would it not be logical that the patient choose his own death rather than let time take his own life away?

Sure, some consider it murder (main reason why this is such a big issue), but at the end of the day, the patient chose to die. They picked their time of death and died with dignity.

This is, however one may word it, murder. I personally don't find anything dignified about it. It may be done with all the good intentions in the world, but the end result is that a human life is still being taken at the hand of the other. It's wrong to take the life of someone for any reason, even if the reasons are completely altruistic. It blurs the line between what is acceptable and what is not in terms of taking lives and any type of doing so is wrong.

It blurs the line when it comes to the law; but it does not blur the line when it comes to what is both logical and moral. I understand the argument of Active Euthenasia being classified as murder--people shouldn't have the right to kill another no matter what the circumstance. But here's the thing, the person wants to die--the person is choosing to die; the person would rather choose his own death then let his own sickness take his won life away when it chooses. In other words, the said patient is controlling his own death and taking it to his advantage. Thus, dying with dignity.

But again, I take my argument back to a family member. If I had a family member that was suffering greatly, I would want them to die in the most comfortable and humane way possible. Still, I would hope that this could be avoided and I could never bring myself to knowingly be a party in this practice. It's murder, however you want to rationalize it. Even if the term does translate to "good death." There's an argument here for mercy over a man made law, but where does one draw the line?

Interesting situation. But let me ask you, you want your family member to die the best way possible--without any suffering. So would that not mean that it'd be much better if your family member were to choose his death the way he wanted and die the most least painful way possible? Think about it. He's going to die no matter what the case. If he decides to just hope that in the end he won't die, the chances of him NOT dying are very minmal. If your family member decides to go via passive euthenasia, all that is going to do is bring suffering to him even more as he will be taken out of the medication that keeps him at ease in his final momments. But if he goes via active euthenasia, then your family member gets to choose the time of his own death and does not suffer at all.

Do you see the connection to your story? You want him to die in the least sufferable way. And the only way to do that is to go via active euthenasia. Which, really should be the only way one in death's row should ever consider to die.

Alas, the problem is that many consider active euthenasia murder. Through influence of the law or influence of [false] morality--such is the case. However, the line that has been spoken of should be broken in this case as the said patient will die anyway. So now, would it not be better if the patient chooses his own death?

 

[LSN80]

Here's the difference though. Choice. If the said person chooses to die, then there shouldn't be anything restricting them to die. Granted, this is much more different than your average day suicide. In day-to-day suicides, people kill themselves because either they can't handle the pressure of life or for some other [stupid] reason.?

Everyone's reason for killing themself is different. A mental disease to some can be just as dehabilitating(and life threatening) as a physical one. Someone who has back problems, severe migraines, or pain disorders may find that they simply have no other option themselves. It's just that we as a society have yet to be able to encapsalate and quantify the severity of mental illness, so we frown on those people that commit suicide, yet we say the person with a dehabilitating physical illness should be given a choice. It's still suicide in both cases, right?

But in the case of active euthenasia, the difference is that the said person will die no matter what the case. His life is set. He has so-and-so left to live and there's nothing he can do about. So now, given that situation, would it not be logical that the patient choose his own death rather than let time take his own life away?

I suppose this comes down to personal preference. Life circumstances can make a person feel as if their time is near and there's no way out, and they are deteriorating mentally and their life is wasting away. We just have no way to quantify it the same way we do with a physical illness.

I can, however, duly note the selfishness that comes with wanting the person around. Logic doesn't always rule the day when it comes to loved ones, emotion does. If you're thinking logically, then yes, a person should be able to pre-determine their time and place of death if the sufferring is going to be unbearable.

Sure, some consider it murder (main reason why this is such a big issue), but at the end of the day, the patient chose to die. They picked their time of death and died with dignity.

I just have a hard time finding dignity in murder. One of the parts of the oath a doctor takes is that they will not "administer lethal doses of medication to anyone, no matter the circumstances." If we throw out one part of the doctors code, where else can and should we bend with said rules? Ive always struggled with the idea of "dying with dignity", especially after my own grandmother died of breast cancer. She chose to fight it, and died a horribly painful death. Selfishly, part of me is glad she did because I got six more months with her that i wouldnt have been afforded had she chosen not to fight. Logically, the best time would have been for her to go 6 months earlier, before she endured such intense suffering.

It blurs the line when it comes to the law; but it does not blur the line when it comes to what is both logical and moral. I understand the argument of Active Euthenasia being classified as murder--people shouldn't have the right to kill another no matter what the circumstance.

I don't think that it blurs the line whatsoever, the law is very clear over the fact that it is murder. Doctors who have been caught engaging in active euthanasia have all gone to jail, no matter how altruistic their motives.

But here's the thing, the person wants to die--the person is choosing to die; the person would rather choose his own death then let his own sickness take his own life away when it chooses. In other words, the said patient is controlling his own death and taking it to his advantage. Thus, dying with dignity.

I understand this argument fully. Logically, it makes quite a great deal of sense. Id never want a family member to die the way my grandmother did. I guess as someone who does believe in God, we don't have the right to pick and choose our time of death. That for all extensive purposes is playing God.

Interesting situation. But let me ask you, you want your family member to die the best way possible--without any suffering. So would that not mean that it'd be much better if your family member were to choose his death the way he wanted and die the most least painful way possible?

Yes. After the experience with my grandmother, emotionally, I would find it to be better for my loved one to die in the least painful way possible, especially if their death is a certainty.

Think about it. He's going to die no matter what the case. If he decides to just hope that in the end he won't die, the chances of him NOT dying are very minmal. If your family member decides to go via passive euthenasia, all that is going to do is bring suffering to him even more as he will be taken out of the medication that keeps him at ease in his final momments. But if he goes via active euthenasia, then your family member gets to choose the time of his own death and does not suffer at all.

But what if the possibility arises where the person has a chance to live? The only way I could possibly say I would be in support of this is if its been determined that the disease in their body is fatal and that they will suffer greatly before death. I would want them to be able to make a decision based upon what they feel is most dignified, not my own bias.

Do you see the connection to your story? You want him to die in the least sufferable way. And the only way to do that is to go via active euthenasia. Which, really should be the only way one in death's row should ever consider to die.

I do see the connection, absolutely. My argument was for a person on death row. The rapist and the serial killer. Those people have given up their right to die with dignity due to the heinous nature of their actions and should have to suffer in prison until the day they die. Am I being harsh? I don't think so.

Alas, the problem is that many consider active euthenasia murder. Through influence of the law or influence of [false] morality--such is the case. However, the line that has been spoken of should be broken in this case as the said patient will die anyway. So now, would it not be better if the patient chooses his own death?

Again, we're talking about the lines between logic and morality. We're also talking about dignity here. There are mentally ill people that will not recover, and their conditions will only get worse. Catatonic Schizophrenia is one of these disorders. Yet, when these people take their lives, we call them "cowardly" and "sad". Yet their internal sufferring may be just as great as the physical sufferring. Should they be allowed to choose their time and place of death, and shouldnt that be considered dignified as well? The only case I could make for a person who is terminally ill taking their own life is if the sufferring is going to be immense. Then yes, there is some dignity in that death. But it still blurs the lines between what is suddenly ethical and what is not in the oaths doctors and medical personnel have taken that involves "doing no harm." Taking a life, no matter the intentions, is doing harm.

 

[Arkham Noir]

I don't think that it blurs the line whatsoever, the law is very clear over the fact that it is murder. Doctors who have been caught engaging in active euthanasia have all gone to jail, no matter how altruistic their motives.

If I can just interject here, this is what I was talking about with mercy trumphing over law. Law is man made. For all intent and purposes, there is no such thing as "law". It is an agreement by the general society to abide by certain rules according to morals. There is no such thing as right and wrong, just what we believe.

With that said, we are humans. We aren't robots. We feel pain and we feel compassion. People suffer and sometimes it all becomes too much. For some it is the weight of the world crashing down on them that can be too difficult to continue with. Others it is physical pain. But I don't think it is fair to say to anyone that they don't have the right to take their life. Euthenasia is someone doing what someone wants to do but can't. At the end of the day it will always be their life, to live and destroy/end. As long as the person consents, euthenasia is mercy.

 

[Ultra Awesome]

Everyone's reason for killing themself is different. A mental disease to some can be just as dehabilitating(and life threatening) as a physical one. Someone who has back problems, severe migraines, or pain disorders may find that they simply have no other option themselves. It's just that we as a society have yet to be able to encapsalate and quantify the severity of mental illness, so we frown on those people that commit suicide, yet we say the person with a dehabilitating physical illness should be given a choice. It's still suicide in both cases, right?

In a way yes, but the key difference is that in the first, the person has a mental illness. Mean ing, in some form or way, they are insanse. Thus, have the inability to think correctly; but in the second, the person is going to die no matter what the cause. His life is going to come to an end no matter what the cause. So if that were the case, would it not be better if he got to choose his own death rather than let the disease take his own life away? It's as the old saying goes: Means to an end.

I suppose this comes down to personal preference. Life circumstances can make a person feel as if their time is near and there's no way out, and they are deteriorating mentally and their life is wasting away. We just have no way to quantify it the same way we do with a physical illness.

I can, however, duly note the selfishness that comes with wanting the person around. Logic doesn't always rule the day when it comes to loved ones, emotion does. If you're thinking logically, then yes, a person should be able to pre-determine their time and place of death if the sufferring is going to be unbearable.

I figure it should be classified as the same result in both logically and emotionally. See, it all depends on the situation. Most, if not everyone in the world will upon arrival of death will be fearful of the cause. Thus, they will enter through stages of insanity. When insane, they will not only cause emotional effects on their families, but on their own as well. So to prevent that, they choose to die prior to insanity so that they prevent such emotional conflicts as well as protect their dignity. The logic in this situation is overall connected to the emotional side.

I just have a hard time finding dignity in murder. One of the parts of the oath a doctor takes is that they will not "administer lethal doses of medication to anyone, no matter the circumstances." If we throw out one part of the doctors code, where else can and should we bend with said rules? Ive always struggled with the idea of "dying with dignity", especially after my own grandmother died of breast cancer. She chose to fight it, and died a horribly painful death. Selfishly, part of me is glad she did because I got six more months with her that i wouldnt have been afforded had she chosen not to fight. Logically, the best time would have been for her to go 6 months earlier, before she endured such intense suffering.

Intense suffering. That is what active euthenasia is ment to prevent. So after reading this brief explanation (and the hints in your previous post), I can 100% conclude that this family member you spoke of, was your family member--your grandmother. Well, in the case of your grandmother, did she not suffer prior to dying. In those 6 months, how many times did she weep; how many times did you weep?; how many times did the rest of your family weep? I'm guessing a considerable amount.

Now when she died? Was it expected? Did you know she was going to die? Did you get to say goodbye to her before she died? What about the rest of the family? Did they get to say goodbye as well? I'm sure some of you probably did--but not all of you.

But now, had she chosen her death 6 months before, she could have gardnered enough time to say her final goodbyes to everyone in her family. She would have been able to spend a few final momments with you and the others. Not only that, but the suffering would have been much less, both mentally and physically.

You said you got 6 months more out of her. But in the end, would it not have been better if the death would have been planned; that way the chapters in her life could have completely come to an end?

I'm sorry I dug deep into your grandmother's story; but it just gets to the point where you stop and think: is 6 months of her alive, worth the suffering that will bring because of it? Is it not better if her death comes while she still has dignity and a handful of the emotional struggles can be avoided? I know my answer. Death is a very dense subject. No one wants to experience death; and no one want to be anywhere close to it. But in reality, death is only a mile stone away. It will come; and it will take all of us. It's inavetable. The hard decisions you want to make will have to be made in the end. Whether done by you or done by God, they will be made. And really, isn't it better for you to choose then God?

I don't think that it blurs the line whatsoever, the law is very clear over the fact that it is murder. Doctors who have been caught engaging in active euthanasia have all gone to jail, no matter how altruistic their motives.

Yes, you're right on this one; my mistake.

I understand this argument fully. Logically, it makes quite a great deal of sense. Id never want a family member to die the way my grandmother did. I guess as someone who does believe in God, we don't have the right to pick and choose our time of death. That for all extensive purposes is playing God.

(I don't think I've ever asked you whether you were a Christian or not, but I'll just go ahead and say it.)

Playing God? So what? You're doing this because you want to prevent suffering inflicted; you're not doing it because of some [possibly] fictional character from the bible. God frowns on this? Does God also frown on choice? The choice to die with dignity? What about inavetable deaths? Does he rather people sufer dying by nature then by them choosing to die quick and painless? No. God wants people to live as happyiest as possible; and if a death is inavetable and the said person would die happy with choosing his own death, then I don't see why it should be this way.

Yes. After the experience with my grandmother, emotionally, I would find it to be better for my loved one to die in the least painful way possible, especially if their death is a certainty.

Exactly. I'm sorry to bring up your grandmother again, but if she is going to die, then the best thing would be for her to choose her own death--and not the opposit. Which is why I believe Active Euthenasia is the right way to go if a person is on death's row.

But what if the possibility arises where the person has a chance to live? The only way I could possibly say I would be in support of this is if its been determined that the disease in their body is fatal and that they will suffer greatly before death. I would want them to be able to make a decision based upon what they feel is most dignified, not my own bias.

That's an interesting point. At the end of the day, it should come to what the person thinks is right and what he or she wants to die. But then again, my argument was never that active euthenasia should be used for ALL of those on death's row. But rather, it should be available as an option if said patients do not believe that they will be able to make it through such an experience.

But yea, it should be up to the person themselves to decide what they want to do. Though, I will say that passive euthenasia is a stupid way to go.

I do see the connection, absolutely. My argument was for a person on death row. The rapist and the serial killer. Those people have given up their right to die with dignity due to the heinous nature of their actions and should have to suffer in prison until the day they die. Am I being harsh? I don't think so.

Nah, you're not being harsh. Rapists and serial killers are a whole different story. They are nothing more than scum and deserve to die. But that's more of an issue that has to do with the Death Penalty, which I see you made a post in my thread.

Again, we're talking about the lines between logic and morality. We're also talking about dignity here. There are mentally ill people that will not recover, and their conditions will only get worse. Catatonic Schizophrenia is one of these disorders. Yet, when these people take their lives, we call them "cowardly" and "sad". Yet their internal sufferring may be just as great as the physical sufferring. Should they be allowed to choose their time and place of death, and shouldnt that be considered dignified as well? The only case I could make for a person who is terminally ill taking their own life is if the sufferring is going to be immense. Then yes, there is some dignity in that death. But it still blurs the lines between what is suddenly ethical and what is not in the oaths doctors and medical personnel have taken that involves "doing no harm." Taking a life, no matter the intentions, is doing harm.

It's only harm if you see it as harm. As pointed out before, the dignity as well as the morality involved in the issue far outweigh the ethicality(?) iin this situation. But of course, when it comes to the law, it is the almighty superior. What the law says go. Does not matter what us small folks believe in, it matters what the law says. And I believe that's the only rea; reason why people don't view active euthenasia as something that should be done. It is the law that has everyone so fixated on it being wrong. Alas, I digress. My point that I am for active euthenasia still stands; and my point that if a person chooses to die with dignity then they should be allowed to die remains strong.

 

[LSN80]

In a way yes, but the key difference is that in the first, the person has a mental illness. Meaning, in some form or way, they are insanse. Thus, have the inability to think correctly..

I think you made my point for me here. People as a society look differently at people with a mental illness, because we can't technically quantify what mental illness is. As I stated previously, some people have degenerating mental conditions that will kill their brain, rendering them incapable of rational thought. As a Behavioral Therapist, Ive seen this firsthand. Shouldn't they be afforded the same option of dying with dignity before they too degeneate? Society says no, and classifies them as "insane", "delusional" "sad" and "irrational."

but in the second, the person is going to die no matter what the cause. His life is going to come to an end no matter what the cause. So if that were the case, would it not be better if he got to choose his own death rather than let the disease take his own life away? It's as the old saying goes: Means to an end.

In this case, dignity and fairness win out. Id rather see them not suffer. Your very spot on here, as it is a means to an end. My question is, do the ends justify the means?

I figure it should be classified as the same result in both logically and emotionally. See, it all depends on the situation. Most, if not everyone in the world will upon arrival of death will be fearful of the cause. Thus, they will enter through stages of insanity. When insane, they will not only cause emotional effects on their families, but on their own as well. So to prevent that, they choose to die prior to insanity so that they prevent such emotional conflicts as well as protect their dignity. The logic in this situation is overall connected to the emotional side.

But logic and emotions are on the complete opposite spectrums of our brain. Logic wins out when you decide not to sleep with the town ****e with STD's. Emotions win out when you decide to sleep with her anyway because you're horny and she's fine.

Death, and the impending thought of it, does lead to a form of insanity, and the lack of the ability to think with logic. As they progress with their illness, they become more emotional and irrational. I saw this firsthand with my grandmother, who was the most honorable, dignified woman Ive ever met. Again, I truly see your point here. I would have preferred not to see her the way she was, but I respected her choice and belief that she live, even if it pained me so to see her suffer.

Intense suffering. That is what active euthenasia is ment to prevent. So after reading this brief explanation (and the hints in your previous post), I can 100% conclude that this family member you spoke of, was your family member--your grandmother. Well, in the case of your grandmother, did she not suffer prior to dying. In those 6 months, how many times did she weep; how many times did you weep?; how many times did the rest of your family weep? I'm guessing a considerable amount.

I cried a considerable amount, and Im not an emotional person. I saw my family weep, and I saw my grandmother suffer. The illness had taken such an effect so quickly that she didnt have the chance to make a decision: By the time they had caught it, it was too late. She had already moved from her logical brain into her emotional one.

Now when she died? Was it expected? Did you know she was going to die? Did you get to say goodbye to her before she died? What about the rest of the family? Did they get to say goodbye as well? I'm sure some of you probably did--but not all of you.

It was quite expected, and she died in May of 2008, in my parents house. It was a Tuesday morning around 9:45 am. I didnt get to say goodbye, as I lived out of town at the time. I drove in every weekend to see her, so I saw her 3 days before she died. She barely knew who I was at the time. Not all of the family did get to say goodbye, but it was quite expected as she had been discharged from the hospital as there was nothing more that they could do. It was just drugs and time at that point.

But now, had she chosen her death 6 months before, she could have gardnered enough time to say her final goodbyes to everyone in her family. She would have been able to spend a few final momments with you and the others. Not only that, but the suffering would have been much less, both mentally and physically.

You're absolutely correct. But in this case, the disease had hit her so fast that the decisions about her care became my mother's, and she knew my grandmother would not want to die before its her "time", chosen by God, Alla, or whatever God you choose to believe in.

You said you got 6 months more out of her. But in the end, would it not have been better if the death would have been planned; that way the chapters in her life could have completely come to an end?

One of the things that I appreciated the most was that i got to make up for lost time. As I had stated, I had moved hours away for a job, and before she became ill, I never visited. I regretted that decision, and neglected my wife on the weekends for 6 months to drive in and see her every weekend. Even in her deteriorating state, which pained me emotionally, I treasured those weekends with her.

I'm sorry I dug deep into your grandmother's story; but it just gets to the point where you stop and think: is 6 months of her alive, worth the suffering that will bring because of it? Is it not better if her death comes while she still has dignity and a handful of the emotional struggles can be avoided? I know my answer. Death is a very dense subject. No one wants to experience death; and no one want to be anywhere close to it. But in reality, death is only a mile stone away. It will come; and it will take all of us. It's inavetable. The hard decisions you want to make will have to be made in the end. Whether done by you or done by God, they will be made. And really, isn't it better for you to choose then God?

Yes, I would rather choose the time and date and way of my death then God. There's no question about it. Id love to go in a state of bliss(highly medicated would be nice.... I kid, I kid!) surrounded by my loved ones. But in this case, the six months with her were worth every minute. Even though she had deteriorated mentally, she still knew who I was. I cried my way through those six months, but I still value and am thankful for them. In a way, Im contradicting myself, and I realize that.

(I don't think I've ever asked you whether you were a Christian or not, but I'll just go ahead and say it.)

I am a Christian, yes.

Playing God? So what? You're doing this because you want to prevent suffering inflicted; you're not doing it because of some [possibly] fictional character from the bible. God frowns on this? Does God also frown on choice? The choice to die with dignity? What about inavetable deaths? Does he rather people sufer dying by nature then by them choosing to die quick and painless? No. God wants people to live as happyiest as possible; and if a death is inavetable and the said person would die happy with choosing his own death, then I don't see why it should be this way.

No, I believe that God gave us all free will to make the decisions for ourselves. But there also becomes a responsibility that comes with those choices. And youre point is very well taken. I happen to believe in God, but Im very rational as well. For myself, personally, I would prefer to die with dignity rather then to die a slow painful death while my mind deteriorates. I do agree that choice should be afforded to people if they so choose, even if I do believe that God frowns on it.

Exactly. I'm sorry to bring up your grandmother again, but if she is going to die, then the best thing would be for her to choose her own death--and not the opposit. Which is why I believe Active Euthenasia is the right way to go if a person is on death's row.

You mean if someone has a terminal disease? When I think death row, I think of a person in prison whose committed a heinous crime. The selfish, emotional part of me is thankful my grandmother lived those 6 months. The logical part of my brain can acknowledge that the best thing for her MAY have been for her to choose her time of death when she was in the frame of mind to make said choice. I honestly believe, however, that she would have found it far more dignified to die how she did then to die through Euthanasia, because of her religious beliefs.

That's an interesting point. At the end of the day, it should come to what the person thinks is right and what he or she wants to die. But then again, my argument was never that active euthenasia should be used for ALL of those on death's row. But rather, it should be available as an option if said patients do not believe that they will be able to make it through such an experience.

There's not much I can really add here, you're spot on about it. I would never look down on a person who decided to die because they cant make it through an experience, be it emotional or a terminal illness.

But yea, it should be up to the person themselves to decide what they want to do. Though, I will say that passive euthenasia is a stupid way to go.

Incredibly stupid. Its choosing to die and suffer? I dont understand the logic as to why one would want to die this way. The only people who should are those in prison: The rapists, murderers, serial killers. They dont deserve more.

Nah, you're not being harsh. Rapists and serial killers are a whole different story. They are nothing more than scum and deserve to die. But that's more of an issue that has to do with the Death Penalty, which I see you made a post in my thread.

I agree here completely, as I know Ive made my point here quite.....strong?

It's only harm if you see it as harm. As pointed out before, the dignity as well as the morality involved in the issue far outweigh the ethicality(?) iin this situation. But of course, when it comes to the law, it is the almighty superior. What the law says go. Does not matter what us small folks believe in, it matters what the law says. And I believe that's the only rea; reason why people don't view active euthenasia as something that should be done. It is the law that has everyone so fixated on it being wrong. Alas, I digress. My point that I am for active euthenasia still stands.

Harm is in the mind of the believer. If a person believes that it is wrong, no matter their condition, active euthanasia should never take place. The idea of it is inherently flawed in that it allows doctors to play God(I know, i said it again!) when they're flawed human beings. And youre right, law is the reason why active euthanasia is frowned upon. But in the end, law is only a list of rules a governing body sets down, not a set of principles by which one lives their life. I believe that it should be on a case by case basis, so its hard for me to say that I support, or am against, active euthanasia. Color me on the fence right now.

 

[Ultra Awesome]

I think you made my point for me here. People as a society look differently at people with a mental illness, because we can't technically quantify what mental illness is. As I stated previously, some people have degenerating mental conditions that will kill their brain, rendering them incapable of rational thought. As a Behavioral Therapist, Ive seen this firsthand. Shouldn't they be afforded the same option of dying with dignity before they too degeneate? Society says no, and classifies them as "insane", "delusional" "sad" and "irrational."

This is different though. These guys are not on death's row. On the other hand, when it comes to dealing with euthenasia, most if not all the patients are very close to experiencing death. Which in the long run, is far more acceptable then having someone who is socially inept kill themselves.

In this case, dignity and fairness win out. Id rather see them not suffer. Your very spot on here, as it is a means to an end. My question is, do the ends justify the means?

Why sure it does. Regardless if the situation seems bad, the main purpose of active euthenasia is for a person to die with both dignity and less suffereing. So because of that, I can only assume that no mater how evil it may look, the end is as always, just.

But logic and emotions are on the complete opposite spectrums of our brain. Logic wins out when you decide not to sleep with the town ****e with STD's. Emotions win out when you decide to sleep with her anyway because you're horny and she's fine.

Regardless of whether they are from different spectrums of the brain, when it comes right to the point, both must be used in order to resolve said situation. In the example you gave: although you may be horny and want to fuck the girl; the logic side of your brain will take over and tell you that the negatives of the result are far worse than the positives.

In any case, the example you gave is much too different then that of deciding the death of a human being. You speak of sex; when the topic is death.

Death, and the impending thought of it, does lead to a form of insanity, and the lack of the ability to think with logic. As they progress with their illness, they become more emotional and irrational. I saw this firsthand with my grandmother, who was the most honorable, dignified woman Ive ever met. Again, I truly see your point here. I would have preferred not to see her the way she was, but I respected her choice and belief that she live, even if it pained me so to see her suffer.

Yeah. As I clarified before, in the end, it's the said patients decision to choose. But active euthenasia should always be put on the table as an option. But of course, that doesn't mean that the patient has to choose it--it's merely an option.

I cried a considerable amount, and Im not an emotional person. I saw my family weep, and I saw my grandmother suffer. The illness had taken such an effect so quickly that she didnt have the chance to make a decision: By the time they had caught it, it was too late. She had already moved from her logical brain into her emotional one.

..And thus came the emotional struggles, correct? Do you see? Active Euthenasia is ment to prevent this. Had your grandmother gone through active euthenasia, not only would she have picked her own death; but perhaps she would have died leaving you and the rest of your family with peace that could not have been achieved because of all the struggles that went down.

It was quite expected, and she died in May of 2008, in my parents house. It was a Tuesday morning around 9:45 am. I didnt get to say goodbye, as I lived out of town at the time. I drove in every weekend to see her, so I saw her 3 days before she died. She barely knew who I was at the time. Not all of the family did get to say goodbye, but it was quite expected as she had been discharged from the hospital as there was nothing more that they could do. It was just drugs and time at that point.

A final goodbye was never achieved on your behalf. Acitve Euthenasiacould have given you that goodbye. But I'm sure all is fine now. Your grandmother is in a special place where she can look down on you and your family in ease.

You're absolutely correct. But in this case, the disease had hit her so fast that the decisions about her care became my mother's, and she knew my grandmother would not want to die before its her "time", chosen by God, Alla, or whatever God you choose to believe in.

The God I believe in is ambiguous. But if that's the way your grandmother wanted to go, then that be the way was best for her. Even still, active euthenasia ould have prevented the much un-needed suffering.

One of the things that I appreciated the most was that i got to make up for lost time. As I had stated, I had moved hours away for a job, and before she became ill, I never visited. I regretted that decision, and neglected my wife on the weekends for 6 months to drive in and see her every weekend. Even in her deteriorating state, which pained me emotionally, I treasured those weekends with her.

Hey man, you did what you could. You tried your best to be there for your grandmother making the tough decisions in the progress. I can only imagine the struggles you endured as a result. And for you to do all that--that's something I trully respect.

Yes, I would rather choose the time and date and way of my death then God. There's no question about it. Id love to go in a state of bliss(highly medicated would be nice.... I kid, I kid!) surrounded by my loved ones. But in this case, the six months with her were worth every minute. Even though she had deteriorated mentally, she still knew who I was. I cried my way through those six months, but I still value and am thankful for them. In a way, Im contradicting myself, and I realize that.

It's not contradiction, it's more as if you are starting to realize that active euthenasia really isn't as bad as it seems. In the end, all it's ment to do is to have an easy way out. Sure, the easy way out isn't always the best; but it's an option that should not be denied.

I am a Christian, yes.

Ah, I see. And me? I'm unknown.

No, I believe that God gave us all free will to make the decisions for ourselves. But there also becomes a responsibility that comes with those choices. And youre point is very well taken. I happen to believe in God, but Im very rational as well. For myself, personally, I would prefer to die with dignity rather then to die a slow painful death while my mind deteriorates. I do agree that choice should be afforded to people if they so choose, even if I do believe that God frowns on it.

It's not so much as God frowns on it; it's more that a book is telling you that God frowns on it. You don't know what whether God really frowns on such a situation, but that is what is said in the books (etc). In my personal opinion, I believe God wants people to live their lives to the fullest. And if it so happens that said person is on death's row; it's only logical to assume God wants them to die the best way possible (criminals excluded).

You mean if someone has a terminal disease? When I think death row, I think of a person in prison whose committed a heinous crime. The selfish, emotional part of me is thankful my grandmother lived those 6 months. The logical part of my brain can acknowledge that the best thing for her MAY have been for her to choose her time of death when she was in the frame of mind to make said choice. I honestly believe, however, that she would have found it far more dignified to die how she did then to die through Euthanasia, because of her religious beliefs.

If that's what she believes then that's what she believes. No one is forcing her to take the easy way out; it's more or less just an option. In the end, active euthenasia is nothing more than an alternative path to take. The thing about his path is that it has much more benefits than the original path. But in the end, it's up to her to decide which she takes and not anyone else's.

There's not much I can really add here, you're spot on about it. I would never look down on a person who decided to die because they cant make it through an experience, be it emotional or a terminal illness.

Exactly. It is their rightful choice to die with dignity. And there shouldn't e any frowning upon that.

Incredibly stupid. Its choosing to die and suffer? I dont understand the logic as to why one would want to die this way. The only people who should are those in prison: The rapists, murderers, serial killers. They dont deserve more.

Exactly.

I agree here completely, as I know Ive made my point here quite.....strong?

Harm is in the mind of the believer. If a person believes that it is wrong, no matter their condition, active euthanasia should never take place. The idea of it is inherently flawed in that it allows doctors to play God(I know, i said it again!) when they're flawed human beings. And youre right, law is the reason why active euthanasia is frowned upon. But in the end, law is only a list of rules a governing body sets down, not a set of principles by which one lives their life. I believe that it should be on a case by case basis, so its hard for me to say that I support, or am against, active euthanasia. Color me on the fence right now.

EDIT: Stupid computer sent in post when I still wasn't done.

In the end, it should all come down to what the said patient chooses to do. it's not up to us to decide for them; it's up to them themselves. If the person chooses to die as a result of the hands og God, then no one should stop them. If the person wants to die before hand and plan their own death, then active euthenasia should be layed on the table as an option for them to use. Active Euthenasia is not being selfish; it's being realistic. It's showing what is the best way possible for someone who is on death's row to die.

Alas, I digress. I strongly believe that active euthenasia is the perfect escape route when death is inavetable. Not only does it cause less suffering but it alows one to die with dignity. Which in the end, when you're going to die either way--it's the best you can hope for.

 

[LSN80]

This is different though. These guys are not on death's row. On the other hand, when it comes to dealing with euthenasia, most if not all the patients are very close to experiencing death. Which in the long run, is far more acceptable then having someone who is socially inept kill themselves..

This is a common misconception, I believe. There are people with mental illness who will not get better, no matter what medication or intense therapy may be tried. In the mental health field, they're labeled as having "degenerative disorders" or one's where their brains will degenerate immensely, and they will never recover. They're not terminally ill in the physical sense, but they will suffer immensely mentally and emotionally as time goes on. While society may label them as "socially inept", shouldn't these people be afforded the immense suffering and pain as well through active euthanasia?

Why sure it does. Regardless if the situation seems bad, the main purpose of active euthenasia is for a person to die with both dignity and less suffereing. So because of that, I can only assume that no mater how evil it may look, the end is as always, just.

Here I agree. I was just posing the question to you. The idea that it appears to be "evil' is only because a governing body tells us that it is. Generally speaking, the motives behind it are altruistic, as they allow a person(and their family) to avoid the pain and sufferring that is inevitable otherwise.

Regardless of whether they are from different spectrums of the brain, when it comes right to the point, both must be used in order to resolve said situation. In the example you gave: although you may be horny and want to fuck the girl; the logic side of your brain will take over and tell you that the negatives of the result are far worse than the positives.

In any case, the example you gave is much too different then that of deciding the death of a human being. You speak of sex; when the topic is death.

Its just an example. Hell, I could use any life situation to make the comparison. The point is that the logical side of the brain is straighforward and only considers long term consequences. The emotional side of the brain will tell you to look only at what seems to be the best thing in the here and now. My argument is that both sides of the brain need to be used to consider active euthanasia. When I do so, I come to the conclusion that active euthanasia is a good option only if all other avenues have been explored and failed.

Yeah. As I clarified before, in the end, it's the said patients decision to choose. But active euthenasia should always be put on the table as an option. But of course, that doesn't mean that the patient has to choose it--it's merely an option.

It should be an option, but the last one. All other avenues of treatment should first be explored, right? Or should a person just be allowed to give up on life because they can't fight the battle anymore? There's a very fine line here.

..And thus came the emotional struggles, correct? Do you see? Active Euthenasia is ment to prevent this. Had your grandmother gone through active euthenasia, not only would she have picked her own death; but perhaps she would have died leaving you and the rest of your family with peace that could not have been achieved because of all the struggles that went down.

I do, and the point is valid and a good one. However, my grandmother was at a point where she was unable to make any said choices for herself. The burden of such was left to my mother. In the end, one could argue that she chose a form of euthanasia. Instead of leaving her in the hospital, she was taken home to my mothers house with only medication, rather then active treatment.

A final goodbye was never achieved on your behalf. Acitve Euthenasiacould have given you that goodbye. But I'm sure all is fine now. Your grandmother is in a special place where she can look down on you and your family in ease.

Not directly no, but the saying of "time heals wounds" rings true here. The six months I was able to spend with her gave me the peace of being there for her during her darkest hour. And yes, I believe she's in a much better place now, thanks for that.

The God I believe in is ambiguous. But if that's the way your grandmother wanted to go, then that be the way was best for her. Even still, active euthenasia ould have prevented the much un-needed suffering.

The God I believe in doesnt want people to live with suffering. He also created us all with free will, but wants us to make the best choices with that free will. Its the idea of a deist God(ambiguous) versus an active God(right and wrong). But more then anything, the God I believe in desires for all people to live happy, peaceful lives. So its hard for me to argue how God will feel about this one....

Hey man, you did what you could. You tried your best to be there for your grandmother making the tough decisions in the progress. I can only imagine the struggles you endured as a result. And for you to do all that--that's something I trully respect.

I appreciate that. The biggest struggle was having grown up with her as someone I could run to when something went wrong, and wanting to do the same for her, and being unable to. I suppose if I had some "control" or "choice" in the matter, and active euthanasia was on the table, I would have considered it logically. Emotionally, it would have been much tougher with my desire to have her alive still.

It's not contradiction, it's more as if you are starting to realize that active euthenasia really isn't as bad as it seems. In the end, all it's ment to do is to have an easy way out. Sure, the easy way out isn't always the best; but it's an option that should not be denied.

I dont know if its necessarily an "easy way out" as it is a "less painful way." And you're right, Im certainly seeing the merit of it.

It's not so much as God frowns on it; it's more that a book is telling you that God frowns on it. You don't know what whether God really frowns on such a situation, but that is what is said in the books (etc). In my personal opinion, I believe God wants people to live their lives to the fullest. And if it so happens that said person is on death's row; it's only logical to assume God wants them to die the best way possible (criminals excluded).

Here we agree completely.

If that's what she believes then that's what she believes. No one is forcing her to take the easy way out; it's more or less just an option. In the end, active euthenasia is nothing more than an alternative path to take. The thing about his path is that it has much more benefits than the original path. But in the end, it's up to her to decide which she takes and not anyone else's.

Well, it is what she believed, as far as I knew her. But upon consideration of it, I believe that a form of euthanasia was chosen in that my mother chose to take her out of the hospital and discontinue all treatment for her. She was taken to my parents house where she was only kept from suffering without medication, albeit prolonging her life. It was in essence a form of euthanasia, as she would have been alive much longer had she been kept in the hospital to continue receiving treatment. Im not sure how she would have felt about it, but it certainly was more humane than the sufferring she experienced in the hospital.

Exactly. It is their rightful choice to die with dignity. And there shouldn't be any frowning upon that.

I never have. As you and I have discussed, being a therapist means seeing some mentally ill patients. A few have chosen to take their own life, euthanizing themself with the same medication that was given to help them. The only difference is the perception of how these people are viewed as compared to the terminally ill.

In the end, it should all come down to what the said patient chooses to do. it's not up to us to decide for them; it's up to them themselves. If the person chooses to die as a result of the hands of God, then no one should stop them. If the person wants to die before hand and plan their own death, then active euthenasia should be layed on the table as an option for them to use. Active Euthenasia is not being selfish; it's being realistic. It's showing what is the best way possible for someone who is on death's row to die.

I think my stance on this has changed quite a bit through this debate. In a sense, it was through the discussion of my grandmother's illness that has made that difference. While I believed that her idea of dignety was to live life as long as "God kept her alive", there was a path of dignity found in that she was taken out of the hospital with only pain relieving medication and steroids to support her. While her last days may not have been filled with goodbyes or her at her best, they were far preferable to the option of staying in the hospital. So there are always choices to be made, and active euthanasia is certainly one to be considered. Nor is it selfish, it allows a person to achieve the least amount of sufferring before their death. My argument, however controversial, is that the same option should be offerred to those who have degenerative mental conditions as well. It gives them the best and most dignified way to end their life, rather then forcing them to live with immense mental sufferring and emotional trauma as their brain deteriorates. But Im rambling here.

Alas, I digress. I strongly believe that active euthenasia is the perfect escape route when death is inavetable. Not only does it cause less suffering but it alows one to die with dignity. Which in the end, when you're going to die either way--it's the best you can hope for.

When death is inevitable, one must pursue all avenues from both a logical and emotional way. And I believe in doing so, it allows each individual to decide what the best case is for them; what allows them to die with what they believe to be the most dignified. Noone should be forced to fight a battle they have no chance of winning without an out. Active euthanasia is a good out.

 

[Ultra Awesome]

This is a common misconception, I believe. There are people with mental illness who will not get better, no matter what medication or intense therapy may be tried. In the mental health field, they're labeled as having "degenerative disorders" or one's where their brains will degenerate immensely, and they will never recover. They're not terminally ill in the physical sense, but they will suffer immensely mentally and emotionally as time goes on. While society may label them as "socially inept", shouldn't these people be afforded the immense suffering and pain as well through active euthanasia?

You make an interesting point here. Active Euthenasia is a road that should be provided for those that are terminally ill. But if the damage to one is mentally, then there shouldn't be a reason for them to want to take their life as well. However, the key concept here is insanity. Are these got not insane? In other words, who's to say that's what they actually want--have their life taken away. Of course, no being wants nor likes to suffer; but that's just the way life rolls. It's not fair; it's not justice; it's reality.

Here I agree. I was just posing the question to you. The idea that it appears to be "evil' is only because a governing body tells us that it is. Generally speaking, the motives behind it are altruistic, as they allow a person(and their family) to avoid the pain and sufferring that is inevitable otherwise.

Yes, exactly. Glad we're on the same page now.

Its just an example. Hell, I could use any life situation to make the comparison. The point is that the logical side of the brain is straighforward and only considers long term consequences. The emotional side of the brain will tell you to look only at what seems to be the best thing in the here and now. My argument is that both sides of the brain need to be used to consider active euthanasia. When I do so, I come to the conclusion that active euthanasia is a good option only if all other avenues have been explored and failed.

You mean for active euthenasia being used as a last resort? Well, I could definately picture that. The only problem would be time. How long are you going to prolong the inevitable? What if said patient goes through immense suffering while trying to find the alternate solution?--these are things that you have to consider prior to decision. But of course, it's inhumane to just throw your life away and do not explore all other possible routes, so yes, I see how Active Euthenasia can be used as a last resort. In the end, it's all about choice. And whatever the said patient's choice is, that is what should be done.

It should be an option, but the last one. All other avenues of treatment should first be explored, right? Or should a person just be allowed to give up on life because they can't fight the battle anymore? There's a very fine line here.

Yes, sir. If the good fight can still be fought, then it should be fought. As my argument has been all along, Active Euthenasia is not morally wrong--it's right. Furthermore, it should always be considerd as an option available for any who see it fit. And if that option just so happens to be the last resort, then so be it. Afterall, it's the patient's decision.

I do, and the point is valid and a good one. However, my grandmother was at a point where she was unable to make any said choices for herself. The burden of such was left to my mother. In the end, one could argue that she chose a form of euthanasia. Instead of leaving her in the hospital, she was taken home to my mothers house with only medication, rather then active treatment.

So passive euthenasia? Well, if there's no other solution, then I guess. However, I'm not too big a fan of this as it really is sort of a stupid way to go. I mean, I'd rathe risk dying by going into some kind of treatment then to go via having medication taken away from me to cause me suffering. Or for that matter, active euthenasia will make things much more simpler as no physical pain is involved.

Not directly no, but the saying of "time heals wounds" rings true here. The six months I was able to spend with her gave me the peace of being there for her during her darkest hour. And yes, I believe she's in a much better place now, thanks for that.

Not a problem.

The God I believe in doesnt want people to live with suffering. He also created us all with free will, but wants us to make the best choices with that free will. Its the idea of a deist God(ambiguous) versus an active God(right and wrong). But more then anything, the God I believe in desires for all people to live happy, peaceful lives. So its hard for me to argue how God will feel about this one....

Well this debate is starting to turn into more of an agreement then an argument, eh?

I appreciate that. The biggest struggle was having grown up with her as someone I could run to when something went wrong, and wanting to do the same for her, and being unable to. I suppose if I had some "control" or "choice" in the matter, and active euthanasia was on the table, I would have considered it logically. Emotionally, it would have been much tougher with my desire to have her alive still.

Well, of course. After all, no one wants to see their relative die ('less you hate 'em). It's only obvious that you would want ot spent the most amount of time possible with the said person. However, I've always believed that in such situation, the best thing to do is to think logically rather than emotionally. Emotions often times tend to get in the way of the hard decisions and thus you have unwanted results. However, if you think things logically, then you're bound to have more succes that way.

I dont know if its necessarily an "easy way out" as it is a "less painful way." And you're right, Im certainly seeing the merit of it.

Yea, "less painful way" sounds much better. I was trying to think of something on the spot and it was the first ting that came to my mind.

Well, it is what she believed, as far as I knew her. But upon consideration of it, I believe that a form of euthanasia was chosen in that my mother chose to take her out of the hospital and discontinue all treatment for her. She was taken to my parents house where she was only kept from suffering without medication, albeit prolonging her life. It was in essence a form of euthanasia, as she would have been alive much longer had she been kept in the hospital to continue receiving treatment. Im not sure how she would have felt about it, but it certainly was more humane than the sufferring she experienced in the hospital.

I never have. As you and I have discussed, being a therapist means seeing some mentally ill patients. A few have chosen to take their own life, euthanizing themself with the same medication that was given to help them. The only difference is the perception of how these people are viewed as compared to the terminally ill.

Yes, I agree. The problem nowadays is that most people blindlessly follow the fictions that have been ccreated by the real world and thus conclude said situations are wrong when in reality, they are right. Alas, I digress as there are a considerable amount of stupid people out in the world.

I think my stance on this has changed quite a bit through this debate. In a sense, it was through the discussion of my grandmother's illness that has made that difference. While I believed that her idea of dignety was to live life as long as "God kept her alive", there was a path of dignity found in that she was taken out of the hospital with only pain relieving medication and steroids to support her. While her last days may not have been filled with goodbyes or her at her best, they were far preferable to the option of staying in the hospital. So there are always choices to be made, and active euthanasia is certainly one to be considered. Nor is it selfish, it allows a person to achieve the least amount of sufferring before their death. My argument, however controversial, is that the same option should be offerred to those who have degenerative mental conditions as well. It gives them the best and most dignified way to end their life, rather then forcing them to live with immense mental sufferring and emotional trauma as their brain deteriorates. But Im rambling here.

No you're not. you have an excellent point and I'm glad you've taken acceptance to active euthenasia. Now, as for those that are mentally ill. Well, it seems that we have ourselves a new thread idea, no?

When death is inevitable, one must pursue all avenues from both a logical and emotional way. And I believe in doing so, it allows each individual to decide what the best case is for them; what allows them to die with what they believe to be the most dignified. Noone should be forced to fight a battle they have no chance of winning without an out. Active euthanasia is a good out.

Exactly. I believe this concludes our debate as we've come to equal terms on everything. Thanks for the fun, dude.