Should Doctors Be Allowed To Assist Patients That Want To Die?

To be euthanized, you need to consent to the action. If you consent to someone ending your life, it's assisted suicide, hence the name.

It's allowed in most countries.

 

Not necessarily. In other countries, people are euthanized without their consent (particularly people who are burdens). Either way, suicide and euthanasia are different, hence the name.

 

Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries bud.

 

A lot of points here make sense.

But where does the line between;

-Switching the life support machine off

-Assisting the suicide of the patient

Surely, switching off that machine in theoretical terms is as good as pulling a trigger. Yet it is not considered so morally.

I agree with you, I wouldn't want to suffer and be forced to endure it because nothing stands a long side me to end it.

The only way around it would be similar to a donor card where the patient has to have agreed to euthanasia prior to being in a state where they are unable to do so.

 

Simple question but complicated answer. In a perfect world this wouldn't be a question because people would value life. I feel as this type of treatment wouldn't be needed because of all the medications we currently have and use. There is no need for terminally I'll patients to suffer because we have drugs to take pain away. As for depressed individuals, no I don't think this should be an option. In a way it's promoting suicide.

 

About life insurance, I currently study in actuarial mathematics. I know for a fact that in these cases of death, payments of the life insurance is delayed and depending on what time of life insurance that person bought, premiums might have to continue even though the person is dead.

Now also you bring up a good point doctors are suppose to "give" life (like cure sick patients and help mothers give birth) so of course the idea of doctors taking away life is kind of new, but then again sometimes it's for the best. I mean I prefer dying in peace rather than suffering and let my loved ones watch me suffer.

 

You're already able to kill yourself why not let a doctor help you do it so you can avoid pain or severe damage.

 

The first one is murder.

You're already able to steal, why not let someone do it for you so you can avoid getting caught.

Same principles. Both are scapegoats to avoid tarnishing your own image.

 

We studied this in my medical ethics course a few semesters ago-

How would you define someone pulling the plug on someone who is only alive through the assistance of life support? If the doctor pulls the plug without consent, is it murder or just letting the person die? What about if the family does it? What if the patient requests it, is it suicide? What about euthanizing mentally ill or disabled patients, who don't have the ability to consent? What about euthanizing pets, the pet doesn't consent to it?

I still think you are narrowly defining Euthanasia as always being suicide is faulty, euthanasia does occur without consent, and there is a reason there are two different terms for two different things, because neither of them fully encompass the other.

 

Can pets talk? Bad example.

It is murder.

Euthanasia is also known as assisted suicide. You're speaking as if I'm the one who came up with the definition. Do some research on it and you will come to the same conclusion as myself.

 

Pets being able to talk doesn't mean anything, they are still "euthanized"

Euthanasia is also known as mercy killing. The examples I listed above are all forms of euthanasia that don't involve suicide.

 

How do you ask an animal for consent if they can't talk?

Yes, those are other names for it (synonyms).

 

Exactly - an animal can't consent, which means that it isn't suicide in all cases (and this applies to mentally handicapped or mentally disabled people as well).

Suicide and Euthanasia are not synonyms. Like I mentioned before, not all cases of suicide is euthanasia, not all cases of euthanasia is suicide.

 

"What does talking have to do with it?"
> Animals can't talk.
> Exactly!

Animals are inferior to humans. View the first post on this thread to get a better understanding.

Comparing the acts of two different species is redundant.

Euthanasia
Assisted suicide
Mercy killing

Are synonyms, otherwise it wouldn't be "also known as".

 

Sigh..

Synonym - a word or "phrase" that means exactly or "nearly" the same as another word or phrase in the same language

It seems even facts can't sway you.

Why are you still on animals? This thread is about humans being euthanized. I just said it's redundant to compare the two for good reason. There is no consent unless the animal is owned by someone. Even so I don't know what you're trying to prove by comparing animals to humans.

I recently said NON VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA IS ILLEGAL IN ALL COUNTRIES. If it's being done, it's murder, not assisted suicide because there is no consent.

Do you understand now?

 

I believe assisted suicide should be legal. I am all for death with dignity, if I cannot wipe my own ass or move without assistance I think I am entitled to death. Medicine has gotten a little too big for its britches as far as i'm concerned. Theres a point where living and being sustained cross and id like to steer clear of it.

 

I can't be bothered going more off topic over semantics stuff since you can't seem to be persuaded that not all cases of euthanasia are suicide..

 

This is not off topic. I just said if there is no consent, it's not suicide.

 

Doctors should not be allowed to assist patients that want to die. No matter what the circumstances are, one's life must be protected. Whether that person is suffering from depression or they are in a vegetated state, their life has value and they should not be allowed to have other people euthanize them.