Why does any thought of euthanasia makes people so squeamish?

I don’t understand how suicide is illegal to begin with… maybe this is a stupid question but what are the legal ramifications of taking your own life?

I guess it’s a big deal because euthanasia involves having someone else kill you… as opposed to you doing it yourself (same deal with an abortion).

I happen to agree with you and I don’t get why this is a big deal. If someone is suffering and wants to end their life, that is their choice. I don’t think our government or others should have a say (in that or abortion). I do understand that in both cases, there are fees and insurance issues and it should NOT be on a taxpayer to cover someone’s death, born or unborn. But I am curious to hear the other side of this argument…

The only thing I have to say about euthanasia is that there are cases of people that have wanted to end their lives due to chronic illness, that have gone on to live and get healthier that state in their own words that they are very thankful they were not allowed to end their own lives..

Because it’s not about the topic. I have no problem with a healthy discussion about politics in which ideas are exchanged and there is a give and take. I have a huge problem with participating in a screaming match with total strangers in which everyone’s minds are already made up and everyone goes home feeling beat up. Politics on billboards have a tendency to fall into the later category, not the former.

A very emotive issue.What I will say is that it’s probably the right decision given the right circumstances when those close to the patient are in union with the patients intent.But hey what do I know. I always thought the youth in asia were a happy, motivated bunch, nothing to get squeamish about surely ;¬}

Even though I am a strong supporter of euthanasia, I don’t like such billboards. Issues such as these should be decided based on intelligent discussions, not clever marketing ploys that divert attention from the real issue.

There is nothing that frustrates me more than a poor argument for a cause I hold dear.

I can understand in certain circumstances that euthanasia might be the right decision. But, and this is a huge BUT. Science is finding new cures each and every day.
What if there was a new discovery announced the day, week or month after this person has died, which would cure this person. How would the family feel about it?

The only worry I have in this issue is: when does the right to die become an obligation to die? “Uncle Fred’s quality of life is very bad and we need his millions more than he does”...

@stranger_in_a_strange_land Yes I agree with you on this, and who would be the one making the final decision? The family? A doctor?
There are too many ‘what if’ for me on this question.

@partyparty “What if there was a new discovery announced the day, week or month after this person has died, which would cure this person.”
Significant medical advances always take several years to develop. If a new treatment was announced, sufferers of terminal illness would be dead before it even got into animal trials.
@stranger_in_a_strange_land “The only worry I have in this issue is: when does the right to die become an obligation to die?”
Never. Euthanasia is about giving a person the right to decide their own fate. Currently the state imposes an obligation to live. If the person is incapable of making a decision, then no decision can be made. In such situations I always choose the option that is easier to reverse. You can always euthanase the person at a later date, but you cannot bring them back to life. I would only support euthanasia on grounds requiring informed consent as strict as is currently required for surgery or radiation exposure.

Perhaps it leaves one in the uncomfortable position of fearing the delivery of one’s own “cyanide pie.” [from Logan’s Run or Soylent Green]

@FireMadeFlesh I agree that all laws against suicide should be abolished. My concern is about pressure being brought to bear on those frail elderly with impatient heirs or being kept alive at state expense in a tight economy.

On the converse, I want my right to end my life respected, even if it has to be carried out by proxy if I’m unable to. Advance directives should be allowed to include the parameters of acceptable life quality; anything outside of that demanding either “pulling the plug” or active euthanasia.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land Definitely. I would propose harsh penalties for encouraging euthanasia, and stipulate that doctor and patient are not allowed to meet prior to the formal request being lodged. I would also leave the definition of ‘encouraging euthanasia’ entirely subjective so people would err on the side of extreme caution.

@lynneblundell yes…have a friend that had a massive heart attack 40 yrs ago. The doctors said he needed a transplant or he would die. He had no energy (just sitting there waiting to die) and all the things that goes with a bad heart. Long story, short….today, he is doing great. According the doctors, 10% of his heart is working…and the doctors said, his 10% is better than most people’s 100%. He plays golf 3 or 4 days a week. And, he is probably the nicest person i’ve ever known. Never said anything bad about anything…

I think it is because it is a slippery slope as seen in above comments. For instance. How can you you in one breath say suicide is a crime and then concent to suicide.
Euthanasia is suicide with assistance.
Not many doctors will feel comfortable with the idea of taking a life when their oath is do no harm.
If we start to devalue our lives because of the quality of life, will more parents having ill children start to fight to have their lives taken.
How long before it becomes ok for assisted suicide simply because a person feels a burden to their family?
Don’t get me wrong. I agree we all have the right to do with our bodies what we want. But the law has to be so percise that it leaves absolutely no room for interpetation. And lets face it. So long as there are lawyers and lawsuits, there will never be a perfect euthanasia senario.

@FireMadeFlesh OK let me rephrase what I said. ‘What if an actual tablet/medicine was announced the next day, week, month’. Not the medical trials stage. How would the family feel then? In my opinion life is for living, no question about that.

People, as a generality, have a fear of death and most people feel like you should fight to live at any cost. I, however, feel like if it’s your life and your body, you should be able to decide whether you want to live or not.

I think people should be allowed to have a “peaceful” death instead of a slow, painful death. I think there would be issues of who is allowed to take part in euthanasia and who isn’t. Do we say only terminally ill patients can do this? Do we say anyone with a certain diagnosis can do this? Do we make the person go through a mental exam to be sure they are mentally competent at the time of the decision to avoid possible law suits from their family? I think those types of issues are why people would rather leave it illegal than try to define it in legal terms.

What if you botch your suicide?

Now you have to be cared for? Or do we go out back, get a brick and finish the job?

Each to his own, but not my cup o’ tea.

I’ll hang on or not until nature decides it’s my time.

You can sign a DNR order if you are chronically ill, you can opt for being kept in a drugged condition if you are experiencing severe pain during the dying process.

And yes, there is alway’s the chance of a miracle.

Quite frankly I believe we can will oursleves to live or die, I for one would not take the euthanasia route, I beleive that when it’s my time, it’s my time and if I am that miserable I can stop eating, and will myself to die.

The mind is incredibly powerful

Although, in the case of heroic measures or keeping someone on life support..I’d vote no…pull the plug, you are only keeping someone alive beyond the natural timetable of their particular death menu.

I dunno…I don’t like the idea of intervening in the natural scheme of things.

Wouldn’t Euthanasia fall under the suicide clause on my life insurance policy and void the settlement. While I would prefer to preserve my dignity and end my life on my own terms (especially given my situation) I also have a 7 figure life insurance policy. There is a lot of weighing going on inside my head thinking about all the contractual problems. It makes me swoon

Of course if the wife unit pisses me off…..Bwahahahahaha

@lynneblundell ” The only thing I have to say about euthanasia is that there are cases of people that have wanted to end their lives due to chronic illness, that have gone on to live and get healthier that state in their own words that they are very thankful they were not allowed to end their own lives..”. In the greater scheme of things that is a inconsequential thing. Watching a documentary on people who leaped fro the Golden Gate while talking with two that survived they said the moment they let go and were falling to what they believed was certain death the reasons for them jumping they thought quite trivial at that point. They lived to go on to better lives but had they not survived, oh well. Same with women who for some reason did not go on with an abortion and they child changed their life greatly for the good or grew up to be a person of importance or stature (no stat Nazis I can’t remember any specific names at the moment but it still don’t change the fact). Just because a few were glad not all will be.

@partyparty ” What if there was a new discovery announced the day, week or month after this person has died, which would cure this person. How would the family feel about it?” Life isn’t fair. What if a person hung around off the hope that some procedure or pill would cure them and could not afford to get it or died in agony while they fought with there insurance to get it covered? Choices made or not always carry some risk, some greater or smaller than others. What if the people in tower two of the WTC decided to leave after the jet hit tower one? They most likely lived, those who decided to stay because they did not feel in danger most likely died. They gambled wrong even though they did not know it. Hind sight is always 20/20.

” Yes I agree with you on this, and who would be the one making the final decision? The family? A doctor?” The person who makes the choice it the person who is ill, the patient. If they become incoherent before they can do it I guess, oh well, they lose that choice if they did not have a medical advance directive stating to the fact and condition they should or wished to be euthanized. That is what advance medical directives are suppose to do and if done right is nearly airtight.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land ”The only worry I have in this issue is: when does the right to die become an obligation to die? “Uncle Fred’s quality of life is very bad and we need his millions more than he does”...” You wory because they will bump off dear old uncle Fred if he refuses to be euthanized, because someone will wish it, or because they will try to convince uncle Fred to give up the ghost? Anything short of threatening him with harm if he did not voluntarily drink the hemlock etc is irrelevant. 100,000 or more times a year people are persuading other people to end a life because it is an inconvenience; “You will lose two years raising that kid and miss out at CFO”, “By Spring Break you will be two big to look hot in a bikini suck that bastard out”, “The father isn’t going to help you why do you want to raise that kid alone, you will just ruin your life”. People try to convince people all the time it is just the person affected can’t speak for themselves like an old person can and they have no personal wealth. In the end it is Uncle Fred decision on if he wants to listen or not, at least he got a choice.

@FireMadeFlesh ” I would propose harsh penalties for encouraging euthanasia, and stipulate that doctor and patient are not allowed to meet prior to the formal request being lodged.” Why? As I have just said daily people are making decisions of life, to get rid of that kid that will “ruin your life”, to keeping your brain-dead teen alive after an auto accident when all that keeps them from dying is the tubes stuck into them. Encouraging someone to euthanize themselves is in many ways no different than family and friends telling Suzie to “get rid of that kid”, or pill the plug on Johnny he is never gaining consciousness and will just suck away all the money on medical care, daily life choices but the “kid” can’t tell his nephew or brother “go to hell, I think I will stick around longer”.

@Pandora ”Not many doctors will feel comfortable with the idea of taking a life when their oath is do no harm.” Irrelevant, just as there are doctors today who don’t see sucking out that “kid” as doing any harm, there will be doctors who will not see granting a person wish of not hanging around as some diaper wearing, pain racked, drooling feeble shell of a person they once was as harm but obligation. We still have abortion doctors be it few and there will be euthanasia specialist should the world finally even out the life double standards.

@ChazMaz ” What if you botch your suicide? Now you have to be cared for? Or do we go out back, get a brick and finish the job?” Bashing someone in the head with a brick is not death with dignity. If you have euthanasia specialist the chances of it not working would be very small. And if you have an advance directive what to do will be spelled out and how. But if you have all the right stuff and have it used right a snowball will have a better chance of surviving on the hood of a black ’68 Camaro SS at high noon in the middle of a July heat wave than the person not passing on.

@majorrich ”Wouldn’t Euthanasia fall under the suicide clause on my life insurance policy and void the settlement.” Policies will more than likely adapt because there will be a distinction between flat out suicide and helping the chronically ill or terminally ill to go in peace the health insurance agencies might even embrace the thought.

Years ago I had an insurance policy that stated if I committed suicide in Missouri after midnight my beneficiary would be exempt from benefits. lolololololol

Because this particular slope is slippery as a slip-n-slide covered with KY jelly!

My main concerns with euthanasia are:

The risk individuals temporarily experiencing their life as intolerable with no prospect that it will ever improve would face because of severe but completely treatable severe depression.

The risk that society may promote if not compel euthanasia for those deemed to be too costly or inconvenient to be allowed to live.

@Dr_Lawrence

Yes, yikes!

Just call the county life control dispatch.

If no one claims you in two weeks you’ll be dispatched. Crikey!

I used to call myself a youth in Asia when I lived in Okinawa.

@Coloma GREAT catch on the insurance policy! Because everything thing happens after midnight! Even picnics the following afternoon!

@Val123

Yes, pretty funny…and Missouri?

WTF…where did THAT little geographical clause come into play? lol

Actually, I am pretty sure the clause was after midnight but BEFORE 5 a.m. and only in MISSOURI!

Soooo…if I was feeling suicidal while in MIssouri I had to make sure I traveled home to California before I whatever…drank the rat poison. hahaha

Guess we missed a really interesting career as underwriters ey?

@Dr_Lawrence “The risk that society may promote if not compel euthanasia for those deemed to be too costly or inconvenient to be allowed to live.” They kinda do that now. As of 2005 (the last year I was able to find numbers) ¾ of a million people were disposed of because they would have been an inconvenience and maybe cost too much over the years. However, many chose not to recognize them as people as to make it more palatable to stomach.

@Hypocrisy_Central ‘Why? As I have just said daily people are making decisions of life, to get rid of that kid that will “ruin your life”’
Because euthanasia is a personal choice, as is abortion, whether or not to stay on life support etc. Such decisions only pass to the next of kin if the person in question cannot communicate or are mentally unsound. No one should encourage or discourage a mother considering abortion, except the father, because it is ultimately her choice.

If anything, greed and plain unfairness by health insurance companies have contributed more to end of life decisions than would have been the case in Canada where public health insurance does not force families to prematurely remove life support because they can’t afford ongoing care. That decision should be made independent of financial considerations. That can’t happen in the USA in most cases!

Because it involves ethical dilemmas.

@mattbrowne What type of ethical dilemmas? Please elucidate.

Well, here’s one example mentioned in a Wikipedia article:

The controversy surrounding euthanasia centers around a two-pronged argument by opponents which characterises euthanasia as either voluntary suicides, or as involuntary murders. Hence, opponents argue that a broad policy of euthanasia is tantamount to eugenics. Much hinges on a whether a particular death was considered an easy, painless, or happy one, or whether it was a wrongful death. Proponents typically consider a death that increased suffering to be wrongful, while opponents typically consider any deliberate death as wrongful. Euthanasia’s original meaning introduced the idea of a rightful death beyond that only found in natural deaths. Euthanasia is the most active area of research in contemporary bioethics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

We need a better understanding of all bioethical issues. Therefore more research is a good thing.

@mattbrowne ” The controversy surrounding euthanasia centers around a two-pronged argument by opponents which characterizes [sic] euthanasia as either voluntary suicides, or as involuntary murders.” That is what I like about matt, straight to a logical point. However, even if it were voluntary suicide the person doing it does so with a clear lucid mind, at least they have a say in their own future. As for the involuntary murder that is quite nebulous to me because there is no murder if the person who is being took down is giving the blessing to those helping or actually doing it because the person desiring it cannot do it themselves do to not being able to operate their limbs etc. The Medical or Final Death Directive with be in play before that time comes so those left will know what the wishes are and what to do of the soon to be deceased incase they are brain-dead or a coma they won’t come out of. There would be no wrongful deaths.

” Proponents typically consider a death that increased suffering to be wrongful, while opponents typically consider any deliberate death as wrongful.” Any deliberate deaths no matter how it happens logically is wrong but in many cases it is lawful. More than 100,000 time a year women cause deliberate death but the court deemed it lawful even if the reason for doing do is a flimsy as not wanting to miss Spring Break, etc. Unlike the old who know what is happening to them and have a say in their future or concern these yet to be born humans are at the mercy of those the court legally gives the right to point “thumbs up”, or “thumbs down” ala Caesar as to if they live or not. And they can’t argue their reasons, desires, or right to live because they are not ready yet and the government affords them no right. To take the right from a person who can speak for his/herself because it makes those left uncomfortable is more than a bit hypocritical.

” Euthanasia’s original meaning introduced the idea of a rightful death beyond that only found in natural deaths.” Regardless of what the original intended meaning which could apply to a person giving their life to save others it should not get in the way of one who want to take control over how and when they pass, and it still do not take away their ability to speak for themselves.

@Hypocrisy_Central – I think politicians will observe what politicians in other countries do. The Netherlands is known to be very advanced and in Germany there’s a lot of pressure on politicians to follow the Dutch way.