PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Society Debates
     Euthanasia. Murder not Mercy
       Why euthanasia should not be legalised

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
stressedstudent

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Murder not mercy  - A debate against euthanasia

Euthanasia has been advertised in a number a romantic views - Euthanasia as the right to die. Euthanasia as aid in dying. Euthanasia as mercy, not murder.

Let us see this issue in its simplest form – as murder, not mercy. The taboo which once surrounded euthanasia, effectively prohibiting its practice, no longer exists in the progressive society of today. The generation of today are embracing something their forefathers loathed and would quite rightly stand against. Murder.

Murder, is the cold-blooded termination of another’s life. Murder is still considered to be one of the most abhorrent offences in the world. In some societies, the death penalty is the only sanction deemed fit for the occurrence of such an unforgivable crime. Conversely, in others, life is considered to be an inalienable right of every human being. Life cannot be taken away by the state, other individuals and in a time not so long ago, yourself.
Suicide, here in the United Kingdom, was treated as a crime. There were strong beliefs within society, derived from religion, that intentionally taking your own life was morally wrong. This view was reflected by the law. However, this “crime” was later decriminalised, subsequent to recognition within society, that survivors of suicide attempts needed help not punishment. There was a common acceptance of the idea that those who were suicidal needed to be shown that life was worthwhile and that they themselves were worthy of living.

Euthanasia is distinguished from murder, by many who agree with the practice, with concepts of rights, mercy and dignity. Euthanasia is defined as the intentional practice of ending an individual’s life, by act or omission, where the predominant aim is to benefit that individual in some way. Euthanasia can be; voluntary, where the victim/individual expressly requests the right to die or non-voluntary, where the individual is unable to request aid in dying. In the latter circumstance the individuals may be unconscious (i.e. in a coma), or unable to communicate for example where the individuals are in a state of paralysis hindering communication or are small children, as were the Siamese twins Mary and Jodie. Non-voluntary euthanasia may also occur were the individual is said to be mentally unable to construct a meaningless decision between life and death.
At first glance euthanasia sounds ethically and morally acceptable-but is it?
Hidden beneath the fancy language lies the reality of murder. Concealed behind the notion of rights are lethal injections. Masked behind the belief of mercy is the withdrawal of medical aid. Disguised behind the principle of dignity is the elimination of the burden on society.

Legalisation of voluntary euthanasia will result in what is commonly referred to as the ‘slippery slope’ effect. Some of those in favour of the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia with the appropriate safeguards oppose the idea of non-voluntary euthanasia being permitted. Yet, if voluntary euthanasia is legalised others in favour of non-voluntary euthanasia would argue that non-voluntary euthanasia should also be permissible. After all if one form is allowed than why not the other? Why should patients who cannot expressly request euthanasia be discriminated against? Why should their right to end their life be taken away because they cannot communicate as opposed to their fellow human beings who can ask for death?

Dignity is one of the most reiterated arguments trying to validate the proposal of euthanasia. We have been told a civilised society should allow people to die with dignity and without pain – and with this statement I wholly agree.
Dignity is the value or worth which a human being has by simply existing not taking into account the actions or class of that individual.
This civilised concept has been mirrored in the abolition of death penalties; the life of a murderer is no less worthy than that of an innocent civilian.
Euthanasia is typically thought of as ‘mercy killing’, as aiding a terminally ill patient to die, to avoid the harsher symptoms of an incurable disease, intolerable pain and suffering and to evade the loss of dignity; the loss of self-worth.
However, I don’t believe a civilised society should help to effectively kill others who cannot take their own lives. Hospices and homes, catering specifically for those with terminal conditions, have been established with the sole aim to enable the suffering to die without the loss of dignity, without the loss of worth and without pain.




-------
The moment we want to believe in something, we suddenly see the arguments for it and become blind to the arguments against it.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 2:41 PM on April 30, 2004 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very well written.

Unfortunately, your audience is only so 2-dimensional, and I found it difficult to read. I would ask that you repeat your opinion on this matter in a more general sense, by saying what you feel in, if possible, only a small paragraph of your main point (summarize, more simply put). However, if you do not have an opinion, and simply only wish to make a point, I certainly will not push you to become rabid or biased :--).
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 11:21 PM on May 10, 2005 | IP
Raelian1

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Euthanasia must be legal everywhere. It's not right for a person to suffer needlessly if he/she is dying of an incurable disease and suffering for it. When a dog or horse is suffering from something incurable and nothing can relieve the pain, we euthanasize that animal. Why do animals get more respect than people when it comes to euthanasia? Why, because of obsolete Christian beliefs (especially in a soul which doesn't exist). We need to let science decide our legislation of matters like that, not outdated religious beliefs.


-------
Proud member of rael.org
 


Posts: 68 | Posted: 10:34 PM on June 27, 2005 | IP
GreySkyLullaby

|        |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what you are failing to realize is that its not about the quantity of lives. its about quality. people who are vegetables who cant even eat by themselves clearly arent living a quality life. and by forcing them to keep this meaningless existance you are bing increddibly ignorant and basically keeping people alive for the sake of keeping them alive. If you were ever in a state  where your bowels were being emptied into a bag you were fed through a tube and people came twice a week to bathe you, would you like to stay alive? this happened to my great grandmother and seeing the pain she was in i am convinced that if a person DECIDES that they wouldnt like recesitation, they shouldnt be forced it.

you are just too afraid of so called "murder" to realize thousands are born each day. letting one old person living a life where they are more dead than alive anyway die isnt bad, nor is it "murder"
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 8:16 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
DBettino

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not only that, but it is a precious waste of state resources.  Why would you keep a vegetable alive?  What could that person possibly contribute to society?  And how much money is wasted keeping them alive?

It makes no sense.  


-------
Wake up, West!
-Oriana Fallaci
 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 03:23 AM on October 13, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Survival of the fittest rears its head I see.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:35 AM on October 13, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Survival of the fittest rears its head I see.


If that were true, we'd liquidate nurseries for seniors and mental institutions.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:06 PM on October 14, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually I was referring to DBs quote.

Not only that, but it is a precious waste of state resources.  Why would you keep a vegetable alive?  What could that person possibly contribute to society?  And how much money is wasted keeping them alive?



-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:44 PM on October 14, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 4:44 PM on October 14, 2006 :
Actually I was referring to DBs quote.

Not only that, but it is a precious waste of state resources.  Why would you keep a vegetable alive?  What could that person possibly contribute to society?  And how much money is wasted keeping them alive?




I know you were. And I still disagree with your conclusion.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 03:35 AM on October 15, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you agree with the idea that only those who can contribute to society and can bring in more money than they spend should be allowed to live?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:13 AM on October 15, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you agree with the idea that only those who can contribute to society and can bring in more money than they spend should be allowed to live?


No. As I said before, if I did, I would be calling for the liquidation of senior homes. I'm not.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:19 AM on October 16, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you don't think his argument is a "survival of the fittest" argument?   "What can they contribute?"  "How much money are we spending on them?"  Seriously?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:01 AM on October 16, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you don't think his argument is a "survival of the fittest" argument?   "What can they contribute?"  "How much money are we spending on them?"  Seriously?


No, not at all. Whether or not they live on should be a question of what they would want. If, like Terri Shiavo, it's clear that someone would like the plug to be pulled on them if they're a vegetable, it's no one else's choice to decide. Why in the world would we waste energy and money keeping someone alive who has every ethical right to die?


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:41 PM on October 16, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you agree with the idea that only those who can contribute to society and can bring in more money than they spend should be allowed to live?


Since the vast majority of individuals in vegetative-states are incapable of procreating, I believe the "Survival of the Fittest" argument is irrelevent to euthenasia discussions like this one.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:15 AM on October 17, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Which is why using What could that person possibly contribute to society? as an argument should never be a reason to kill someone.  That is a "survival of the fittest" argument no matter how you want to slice it.  Cull the herd, if you will.  If that is our argument (what is this person contributing to society?  are they bring in more revenue than we are spending on them?) then all people should be sterelized and the human race should die off.  It takes years and loads of money to bring a child up to a revenue producing state.  That's money that could be spent on the pursuit of your own happiness.  Maybe we can get Bob Barker to make an ad for spaying or neutering your child.  Who's with me?  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:12 AM on October 17, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Maybe we can get Bob Barker to make an ad for spaying or neutering your child.  Who's with me?  


LMAO. His speeches on that stuff rule. Bob Barker FTW.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 10/17/2006 at 4:03 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:03 PM on October 17, 2006 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 8:41 PM on October 16, 2006 :
So you don't think his argument is a "survival of the fittest" argument?   "What can they contribute?"  "How much money are we spending on them?"  Seriously?


No, not at all. Whether or not they live on should be a question of what they would want. If, like Terri Shiavo, it's clear that someone would like the plug to be pulled on them if they're a vegetable, it's no one else's choice to decide. Why in the world would we waste energy and money keeping someone alive who has every ethical right to die?



Just because one has the right does not mean that one must to use that privilage.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 4:28 PM on March 28, 2007 | IP
StefanKoh

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Euthanasia should be legal. It is inhuman for a terminally ill person to suffer if he/she is dying and is in great pain. When an animal suffers from something incurable and nothing can be done to relieve its pain, we put that animal down.

We should not let obsolete Christian beliefs decide on whether or not to legalise euthanasia. We need to let science decide on whether or not euthanasia should be legalised.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 12:27 PM on February 8, 2010 | IP
freewill

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I completely support Euthanasia and Dr. Kevorkian. I feel everyone should have a right to choose how to die.  

If it's your own life and you are terminally ill and are in pain . You have a right to die with dignity.

I believe with all my being  that if you have a choice to live then you should have a choice to die, Never let other tell you how to live your lives.

 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 10:39 AM on August 2, 2010 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

why is it illegal to kill some one that wants to die, but perfectly legal to kill an injured animal the obviously wants to stay alive? and if so called mercy killing is so humane than wouldn't any one not killing a seriously injured person be acting in a inhumane way?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 12:08 PM on December 6, 2010 | IP
Iliketodebate

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from SilverStar at 11:08 AM on December 6, 2010 :
why is it illegal to kill some one that wants to die, but perfectly legal to kill an injured animal the obviously wants to stay alive? and if so called mercy killing is so humane than wouldn't any one not killing a seriously injured person be acting in a inhumane way?



That's why euthanasia should not be legalized. People who are unable (in a coma, too young, mentally incapable) to make that decision could end up just like those animals.


-------
--~ Would you tell Picasso to sell one of his guitars? ~--
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 9:51 PM on January 12, 2011 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no mater what doctors tell you there is only one irreversible condition. the condition of being dead. no matter how terminal you still have a chance till your brain ticks off.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 1:23 PM on March 5, 2011 | IP
kemstkid

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think if you set very strict laws and the person in question decides they want to die with dignity we should let them. I just read an article on euthanasia and i agree with it. If you set real laws about how, who, when and all that-saying if there is no other wya, the patient wants it (and they are not under 18 (at 18 you can sign up to go to war and lose your life for your country)) and the only choice is between dieing a slow, painful death or dieing a pain free death with your dignity still in place it should be ok. I do not think that we should go right ahead and kill the elderly (unless they choose it) or those in a coma or vegatative state unless they have DNRs or the like. I think everyone of age should be able to choose how far they go; if they have no other option-nothing can be done for them then they should be able to choose it.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 2:49 PM on January 10, 2012 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.