What is the common conservative viewpoint on euthanasia?
447758
The only people who can legally kill people are the state. That is how conservatives see it. A medical doctor cannot make a decision on life and death. \n\nI do consider myself a consevative however I believe it to be hypocrytical of christians who are against abortion and euthanasia but for the death penalty. Makes no sense at all.
1088896
Conservatives have twisted morality.  \n\nWhat are you if you believe in torture, government interference in your sexuality, government killing of citizens, Government censorship of the press, Government Censorship of Art, elderly poor eating cat food and living on the streets, no-warrant police searches of private property, and want to live in a country where poor people don't get medical care?\n\nYou're an american conservative.
778599
I am completely for assisted suicide for the terminally ill.  If someone is so sick that thier quality of life is so bad that death is a release, so be it!  If suicide is used as a political statement ( such as hunger strikes and monks setting themselves on fire) I find that equally acceptable even rightious.  But if someone is going to kill themselves because they can't pay thier bills, or they are unhappy in thier marriage, I think that is cowardly... these are things that can be changed, declare bankruptcy, get a divorce... dont kill yourself!  If you are depressed, see a specialist, there are plenty of mood moderating meds available!
19882
It's just my opinion, but we live in a world where the need for medical care outstrips the available resources.  If someone of sound mind has decided that they no longer wish to live, it only makes sense to help them.  Not only does this ease suffering, it also frees up valuable health care resources for people who want to keep living.\n\n** Big disclaimer ** This of course does not take into account any religious convictions that people may have.
895706
I do not think gay marriage or abortion should be made illegal.  I am simply an economic conservative and morally apathetic.  I believe drugs should be decriminalized and marijuana legalized.  I think the drinking age should be lowered as it serves to curb binge drinking, alcoholism and drunk driving, as people become accustomed to drinking earlier in life and it does not gain the "forbidden fruit" aura.  I am economically conservative, however, and feel that taxes show be dramatically lowered, the welfare state shrunken, and national security buffed up.  I feel that my moral stances make me different from many conservatives
440206
If it is in the best interest of the person the euthanasia is meant for, then its good. Go for it. If the person can be saved, it's considered murder. Not by the medical party, but by the deciders.
846467
I believe either way is acceptable...and I'm pretty conservative :)
1066265
Broadminded and conservative are mutually exclusive terms.  Conservatives have a set of beliefs that narrow their outlook, and their minds are by nature geared to have a narrow outlook and to want a narrow outlook.  They thrive having their minds restricted by authoritarian ideologies like religion, law-and-order, and other such prescribing dictates.  They are very uncomfortable with personal liberty management, and that is why they fight so constantly to get enforcement of prescribing rules and regulations.  It looks like they want everyone to go by what they believe, and that sure would be fine with them, but what really motivates them is their own need to escape the frightening personal liberty management issues that broadminded people handle well and enjoy.\n\nSo you can tell if you are broadminded or conservative by how well you deal with personal liberty, how threatened you are by non-standard and traditional life-styles, how much liberty you are willing to tolerate other people having.
79958
If euthanasia is allowed my concern is a doctor going to try hard to perserve life?  No, basic human nature.  It violates the Hypocratic Oath that they take.\n\nIt inessence makes doctors gods determining life and death.  Doctors are to perserve life.
505406
While Christianity feels all human life is holy and a gift from God, the Christian ethics have no problem with a person risking or giving up his life for the sake of others. This is what Jesus did. This is not considered suicide.\n\nA completely different and more complicated question is whether it is ethical to kill one person to save many. I don't think this would be ethical, "The end does not justify the means."\n\nWith love in Christ.
1013037
Your question is really a mixture of a few things. First, not all conservatives support war, killing or hunting. Death in war (from fighting in a war) is not "murder", which is different from being killed during war-time fighting.  Don't confuse the two, and you are.\n\nMurder is pre-meditated, lying in wait for someone without cause. Killing on the battle field is defending something. The two are entirely different.\n\nI don't support the so-called "sport of hunting". I support people who want game for food to properly take the animal down. Hanging a head of an animal on your wall is tasteless.\n\n"Thou shall not kill" means that you should not go around murdering innocent people by lying in wait for them, premeditation, as murderers do. It does not refer to taking down an animal for food or a person killing someone in battle.
753106
Difficult to put an absolute age on it - some people are useful way past the age of 50, others are useless from the age of 15.\nBut why not voluntary Euthanasia - someone who's got nothing to live for but tea and Emmerdale, might "want" to take a trip to the other side, just to see if it's true, or not. But they're not allowed to.
742725
1. Yes, I would. It would be nice to know I could help someone to live a better life.\n2. "ordinary means", to me, refer to routine, usual, natural procedures (such as dying of natural causes); "extraordinary means" refer to procedures that are not customary (unusual, unnatural, such as euthanasia);\n3. This is a tough question because it involves legal and religious issues. To me, euthanasia is somewhat similar to the death penalty in the sense that someone has (or will have) the legal right to end someone else's life. When I think of both issues, from a detached standpoint, it seems OK for a doctor to end a terminal patient´s life and for the State to "kill" a criminal by lethal injection. That's because I am not the one who will be responsible for those "death sentences". However, if a relative of mine were in a vegetative state and I would have to pull the plug (so to speak), seriously, I doubt I would do it. It´s a matter of principles. Long story short, even if it were "legal", deep down, it would still be "illegal". \n4. cf. no. 3.\n5. If I had to choose between the two, I would definitely prefer "active euthanasia". It breaks my heart when I think of Mary Schiavo. The way she was treated, to me, was inhumane.
237815
This is an article [as requested by you], written by an unknown author, and posted on www.studyworld.com.  The author's views are his/her own, and do not in any way reflect Kittykid's views on this topic : \n                  Euthenasia\nSue Rodriguez, who openly advocated Euthanasia, has reminded us all of our own mortality and our need to think carefully about the kind of society we want to live and to die in. \nSue Rodriguez was known through the media, and her well spoken and eloquent speeches. People painfully in support of what she believed in, watched as her strength was sapped by the devastating disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), and we were moved by her clear thought and her bravery as a person facing death. \nHere was a woman who acted on her beliefs with\ncourage and tenacity and whose grace has enriched us all.\nIt is no defense to point to the fact that a person has\nrequested to be killed: "No person is entitled to consent\nto have death inflicted upon him, and such consent does not\naffect the criminal responsibilities of any person by whom\ndeath may be inflicted upon the person by whom consent is\ngiven," which seems to mean that no one has a right to\nconsent to have death inflicted on him or her. \nIn addition, if a person causes the death of another, the consent of the deceased does not provide the person who caused the death a defense to criminal responsibility. Is there a difference, do you think, between a person who, at a dying person's request, prepares a poison and leaves it on the bedside for that person to take, and a person who helps the patient to drink it or who administers it directly at the request of a dying person who is unable to take it personally? Is there, in short, a real distinction between killing and letting die? \nWell, this is the difference between passive and\nactive euthanasia, and if you believe in euthanasia, you\nmust decide which one is correct or even accept both to be\ncorrect depending upon the situation. We must carefully\nthink through a number of conceptual issues. What is a\nperson? What is death? How does the difference between\nactive and passive function in arguments for and against\neuthanasia? Is there any difference between killing and\nletting die? Suppose the doctor agrees to withhold\ntreatment... \nThe justification for his doing so is that the\npatient is in terrible agony, and since he is going to die\nanyway, it would be wrong to prolong his suffering\nneedlessly. But now notice this. If one simply withholds\ntreatment, it may take the patient longer to die, and so he\nmay suffer more than he would if more direct action were\ntaken and a lethal injection given. \nThis fact provides strong reason for thinking that, once the initial decision not to prolong his agony has been made, active euthanasia is actually preferable to passive euthanasia, rather than the reverse. \nIndividuals have the right to decide about\ntheir own lives and deaths. Denying terminally ill patients\nthe right to die with dignity is unfair and cruel. The\ngolden rule requires that we allow active euthanasia for\nterminally ill patients who request it in certain\nsituations. \nPeople have the right to die with dignity and\nlucidity. Gayle Stelter (Vancouver Sun) writes, "For almost\nseven years I have been living with cancer, mostly joyously\nand gratefully, but gradually seeing the disease\nencroaching relentlessly on my once healthy body.\nThroughout these years, I have thought long and hard about\ndeath and I've discovered that it's not the prospect of\ndeath itself that is so frightening, but the process of\ndying. So to give myself courage, I have held an option in\nreserve.\nWhen I can see no quality ahead, when I am capable\nof bidding my loved ones a coherent farewell, when I am\nstill in control of my resources, I will enlist someone's\nhelp to speed me on my journey. \n... For those of us who may choose to leave while there is still
959698
It's inherent in the idea of tradition and conformity, which are strong conservative values.\n\nThe conservative model advocates slow change, conformity and respect for doing things the same way they had been done. They oppose radical shifts, and fringe or alternative lifestyles, because those tend to be (as they believe) destablizing influences.\n\nThey also tend to believe that groups make decisions better than individuals, and that people should not be allowed to make choices that are harmful. It's a very parental attitude.
829948
I'm a conservative, and I don't care what anyone else does.  Not at all.  I think we all have to make our own choices and live our own lives.  What bothers me, though, is when all the people who choose to live self-destructive lifestyles - embracing drugs, excessive alcohol, etc. - expect society to bail them out of the messes they get themselves into.  We ALL need to take responsibility for our own actions.
515851
I don't know if it should be considered a "right". I think each case should be determined on its own merit. Some say they are against, some say they are for it. Who is right? If a person is terminally ill, in incredible pain, why shouldn't they be able to make a decision to have a doctor assisted suicide? They are many who agree that the death penalty is moral, so why shouldn't the right to die be considered to be moral. Some places consider execution and abortion to be legal, each in each instance the taking of a life. Yet they have a problem with assisted suicide.