Who believes that sometimes euthanasia is the last kind resort ?
81151
I believe when people are very ill they have a right to decide if they want to live on or not.
349183
I don't really see a question here, but yes you are right. What better way to die than for something that you beleive gave you life and can offer you ever lasting peace. People take their God very seriously.
146761
This should be a personal choice addressed by every adult with a trusted loved one who will follow the wishes of the person with terminal disease.  I am not saying the loved one should kill the person, just support the decision of the person to continue life no matter what or to be allowed to die with no extra measures or....in Oregon...with assistance.  You decide what is right for you and give that right to decide to those you love and respect even if you don't agree.  For any other than yourself....it is NOT your choice.  We have laws to allow our animals....and criminals to have as humane a death as possible, but we somehow believe it is wrong to allow the same for ourselves and our loved ones.  There is something wrong with this .....
405568
Euthanasia - it would make a great persuasive essay.
491530
assisted suicide, actually
957801
The most basic example I can think of is when a doctor, unwilling to deal with a grieving family, tells them that a patient who is terminal will get better.  This offers hope to the family, but if the patient will not survive, when he dies it just hurts the family all the more because they didn't have a chance to say goodbye or prepare themselves for the worst.  The doctor in this case did something evil, even if it was for the good intention of providing hope and comfort; because all it did was crush them even worse when it was over.
832462
I totally agree. Sometimes i think maybe it would be good to make them sit their whole life and rot . If i had my choice, i would make the person stay alive so every day they can think about the choice they made! The death penalty seems to be a cop out. But others days my opinion changes...
1106954
i can understand why a person would want to be euthanized. in oregon, they call it "dying with dignity" for a reason. instead of a drawn out death that costs more and more each day, and instead of succumbing to the most horrible ways a person can die, these people choose to die with what dignity they have left. \n\ni saw my grandpa die in front of me, and it was the worst sight i've ever seen. he was in such pain and convulsing with blood actually coming from his mouth, only to have more pour out when he finally passed. and yet this is the last image i have of him. euthanasia gives a loved one a chance to pass more peacefully. \n\nbut it is a person's choice, and i respect both the choice to continue living with the disease and to euthanize yourself.
176884
Yes, I do. The Netherlands legalized it not too long ago, and my uncle was euthanized just after that. {Is that correct English?} It was a good thing for him. He was of sound mind, but was terminally ill. Instead of everyone watching him suffer, they let him do this. So yes, I think it should be legal, as long as it's strictly monitored.
587019
Influence? Do you mean was is their view of death? If that is the question then I will attempt to answer. Their views of death is usually that of acceptance. They are usually willing to give their lives for a higher idea which is considered to be a very honorable way to die. There are dishonorable ways to die. That means to those who believe in reincarnation that you'll come back as something other than a human. To the samuri that often meant you'd go to a terrible hell. Death is viewed as inevitable and the natural course of things. Something must die so something else can live. That's not to say that they won't fight death but, if it comes for them they are accepting and try to face it with dignity. Sometimes committing suicide is viewed as the way to correct a grave error. In many ways... they have a very simple, yet a very complicated view of death.
8761
i agree!!\n\nEuthanasia (Greek: ευθανασία - ευ "good", θανατος "death") refers to assisted dying. The assistance ends the life of a person or an animal, in a painless or minimally painful way. Euthanasia is most often performed in a merciful way, in order to end suffering. This article discusses euthanasia in humans; a separate article covers animal euthanasia.\n\nThis topic is often highly-charged—emotionally, politically, and morally. Terminology and laws shift over time and geographically and globally, causing a great deal of confusion.\n\nFirstly there is some debate as to whether euthanasia refers to "letting die" or "allowing to die." (See terms: informed consent, decisional capacity, surrogate decision making, Living wills, Do Not Resuscitate) In the United States and the Netherlands, "letting die" or "allowing to die" refer to areas which the state consider ethically and legally acceptable and permissible. This includes the withholding and withdrawing of medical treatment such as dialysis or feeding tubes or hydration and nutrition. The last two being things which are associated with "love and caring" in most cultures. While the concept of holding off on those two things may be counterintuitive, as a body's major organ systems try to shut down, a dying person often feels most comfortable without any fluids or food. To do otherwise is like "force feeding" a body that does not "want" or need to be fed or hydrated, and doing so may actually cause physical discomfort and suffering.\n\nIn the UK this is usually only accepted when a newly born baby is born with certain physical or mental disorders.\n\nIn most other countries removing or denying treatment would usually be seen as murder. Usually, because in a growing number of law cases over the last 20 years, the jury has sided with the defendant.\n\nNext are several summary statements defining what euthanasia can include,. These are followed by expanded definitions of each. Euthanasia (assisted dying) may employ methods that are either indirect or direct. Indirect methods of euthanasia are defined by a individual him or herself taking the final step inducing death. Direct methods are defined by the involvement of others (clinicians) who take the final step inducing death. Direct euthanasia can either be voluntary, nonvoluntary or involuntary. (See Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche for one of the first uses of the three types of euthanasia.)\n\nIndirect euthanasia involves the indirect involvement of a clinician (e.g. physician, clinical nurse practitioner, pharmacist) as an agent who participates only by providing the means for a patient to induce his/her own death. This could mean writing or filling a prescription for medications in a quantity large enough to cause death when taken by the patient. This kind of assistance is currently legal in the American state of Oregon. It became legal in 1998 as a result of the "Death with Dignity Act" which was passed in the state in 1994. In politically and emotionally loaded terms, this is frequently referred to as physician-assisted suicide.\n\nDirect euthanasia involves the direct involvement of a clinician as agent in inducing a patient’s death. (e.g. administering a lethal drug by injection.) Direct euthanasia is not currently legal anywhere in the US, but both direct and indirect euthanasia are legal in Belgium and the Netherlands.\n\nVoluntary euthanasia occurs with the fully-informed request of a decisionally-competent adult patient or that of their surrogate (proxy). (Example: Thomas Youk, with ALS was assisted by Jack Kevorkian.)\n\nA large part of the controversy surrounding euthanasia focuses upon the slippery slope argument. The fear is that indirect euthanasia and/or voluntary direct euthanasia will lead to acceptance of the nonvoluntary and involuntary types of euthanasia.\n\nNonvoluntary euthanasia
963657
Many people are in favor of the death penalty for certain criminals who are deemed worthless to society. How is euthanizing severely disabled babies different than killing a criminal? Both are making value judgements about a life.\n\nI am a liberal, and I am conflicted about such questions. Why pay to keep someone alive if they will never contribute to society? And, why keep a severely disabled child alive that will be a drain on society? But, life is precious; how can we as humans effectively decide that a life is worthless when we cannot know the ultimate outcome?
1087296
that's one theory, if you buy into a harsh rendition of 'survival of the fittest'. but there are pros and cons to most theories. many people would claim that what separates humans from other animals is our capacity for compassion, empathy, reasoning, problem solving. so it could be deemed immoral to allow the suffering of others if we're in a position to relieve it.\n\nthere's also the thought that we're all ultimately self-interested. it benefits us to have a happy world -- and that doesnt necessarily mean having the world all to ourselves. yes, perhaps the population will naturally impose checks on itself. the earth has been through a series of catastrophes and times of flourishing. perhaps it will regulate itself. but death and disease and suffering exact a toll on even the healthy. and we would want to believe that if we were in the position of needing help, others would reach out to help us, as well. the golden rule, right?
21251
We covered this in my Contemporary Moral Problems class. It really made me think about it in a different way in that I was kind of oblivious to how it could be abused. I always thought that if someone wanted to end his or her own life, they should be able to do so, especially if they were in any sort of pain. I realize that sucks for the family and friends of that person, but if they really cared about the person, they would understand and at least be there for them. But then you have to think about the Teri Shivos of the world who never mentioned whether or not they would want to be kept alive. The power now lies in the hands of the family and doctors. I think a better question here would be who should be allowed to handle such a decision. That involves an issue of power- a power perhaps no one should have over anyone. That could lead to someone killing another out of spite or even out of some sort of monetary gain. While I completely agree that if someone wants to end their life, they should be able to- but some serious thought needs to go into who should have the power if someone is unable to make that decision for themselves.
1148668
I have always said that if my illness ever takes me to a point where I am suffering unduly, where my dignity and self-worth are  compromised, I would want someone to take my life if I couldn't do it myself. Because this isn't legal,  I wouldn't expect anyone to do this for me but it is how I feel on the subject.\n\nWe do it for animals, so that they don't suffer, and I strongly believe in these circumstances euthanasia is thr only humane way.
371066
I, too, believe the answer would not be accurate as many such suicides are not recognized as such. I even had a father in law that was kept alive by his doctor until our family could arrive. Shortly after we spent a couple days with  him, he went into emergency room and was given pain meds and died shortly after.\nI have to agree with the person's answer above that wouldn't it be nice if we could live a quality life rather than gauged on quantity and be allowed to leave this life with dignity when the time comes.
583185
That it is wrong.\nHistory has already shown us what happens when this is allowed--suddenly it not just the terminally ill but every "Undesirable" human that someone playing "God" determines should die. (See Nazi's)\n\nThat brings me to the real point--only God decides when one dies.\n\nExample: would you want someone to decide that your baby who may have been born with a birth defect should be killed instead of doctors trying to save it?\n\nThat is just one of the many dilemas which we as a society would face if the practice of Euthanasia was ever embraced.